Question: Is there a metaphysics or philosophy that deals with the
idea that "only that which can be measured is real"? I was introduced
to this idea at a workshop and it is what I think of when I hear all
the stuff about SOM. It seems that's what Pirsig was talking about
when he mentions SOM - the idea that if you can't see, feel, hear,
touch or taste it - it isn't real.
I've talked about this (sort of) with the energy work I do with my
actors. We can't "see" the energy....and we don't "feel" it (at least
not in the traditional sense)....it's not heard or smelled or
tasted....(and I have no idea how you would measure it) but I'm
convinced that it's real.
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
David Buchanan wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Buchanan [SMTP:DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 12:10 PM
> > To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
> > Subject: MD X
> >
> > Just a few words about SOM as a philosophical target.
> >
> > In response to the idea that SOM is "no big deal" I had disagreed with
> > Struan, saying...
> > "I really don't see room for honest disagreement here. I think there is
> > great level of certainty on some matters. The sky is blue, the Earth is
> > round and Scientific materialism is the West's world-view."
> >
> > STRUAN and/or his 'alter ego,' one Theo Schramm responded with...
> > Of course scientific materialism is the predominant world view in the
> > West.
> > I never claimed it
> > wasn't, as any cursory glance at the archives will show. The problem is,
> > DMB, that you don't
> > understand coherent materialism so you invent your own simplistic,
> > 'neo-Democritic,' version and
> > call it SOM. Then you obliquely question my honesty by falsely equating
> > the
> > two and suggesting that
> > I do the same. I do not. I never have. I never will and still I don't.
So,
> > I
> > will restate the above
> > sentence again just for you. Modern scientific materialism is ultimately
> > concerned with relations,
> > not with substance and certainly not with the chimera that constitutes a
> > rift between ourselves and
> > the cosmos. But enough, one could spend all day correcting your
inventions
> > and distortions so I will
> > leave it there.
> >
> > DMB says
> > OK, calm down. We're just talking here. There is no reason to get upset.
> > In
> > fact, I didn't mean to imply any dishonesty on your part. The phrase "no
> > room for honest disagreement" simply conveys a level of certainty on the
> > issue. But while we're on the topic, posting opinions that you don't
> > really
> > believe under a false name isn't quite honest. It IS interesting as an
> > experiment, however, and I'm a little jealous that I didn't think of it
> > too.
> > Did I interact with your alter ego?
> >
> > More to the point, I'm not the only one who makes the connection between
> > scientific materialism and SOM. Pirsig is all over that one. Maybe that's
> > where the disagreement truely lies? In any case, to say that Scientific
> > materialism is not concerned with substance seems plainly illogical to
me.
> > What's the difference between material and substance? And I thought it
was
> > metaphysics that was "ultimately concerned with relations"? But the point
> > is, Pirsig describes the same problem using both terms. The flaw in our
> > intellect, in our world-view is called SOM and amoral scientific
> > objectivity. Its the same thing. Sure there are distinctions to be made,
> > there are dissenters, people who've recognized the same issues. Its a
rich
> > and complex thing. But in the broad view, the only real difference
between
> > metaphysics and a world-view is the formality with which it is absorbed,
> > the
> > particular brand you buy. Even the idealists and romantics are stuck with
> > reacting to the same deal, and I thinks it's plenty BIG.
> >
> > What does neo-Democritic mean?
> >
> > How did Wittgenstein end the Cartesian era?
> >
> > Didn't the Vienna Circle seek to create a meta-language free of
> > subjectivity? It seems to me that the Linguistic philosophers were very
> > much
> > caught up in SOM, even if they never called it that.
> >
> > Looking forward to your polite and reasonable response.
> >
> > Thanks for your time. DMB
> >
> >
> > MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> > MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST