Greetings Struan,
Seems like we are finally getting somewhere, but it would
be better if
you could stop answering so evasively. If I were to answer
you the way
you answer me, my posts would look somewhat like this :
"You wrote a lot of rubbish that I found very amusing.
You probably are
an idiot. Thanks for you time."
Quit the patronizing tone and try to answer honestly, I
think this conversation might be more interesting. For the
moment I'm just trying to save the MOQ from unfounded
attacks, and I find quite boring to disprove what are, at
the bottom, misunderstandings quite symptomatic of a
SOM-centered culture.
> Greetings,
>
> 'Critiques' Denis, they are called 'critiques,' and I
answered them all. You object only because it
> is me who writes these things, and so you object without
thinking.
I've read that complaint before from you, but I'm only a
recent addition to this forum and I still harbour some hope
for you (not much, I admit). Anyway, I judge what I read,
not the person behind whatever is said.
Though the general tone of your posts tends to irritate me,
which is probably the goal anyway, I try to keep this
debate polite.
My critiques (thanks for the spelling, I thought only the
french wrote it this way) weren't answered. Only dismissed
as not relevant, without explanation. Easy way out, I
guess.
> Take 'atman' for example. It does
> mean the real self, literally transliterated from the
Sanskrit as, 'essence.' It was the Buddha who
> denied 'atman' not classical Hinduism. You get this wrong
because you are lazy and your only purpose
> is to contradict.
Ha, ha, ha. 'Atman' is the holistic spiritual self, you
are right, but as the following quote (from the
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad) will make clear, isn't a "self" in
any western sense of the word :
"For as a spider comes out along its thread or as sparks
comes out from a fire, even so, from the Self (atman) comes
forth all the senses, the worlds, the gods, and ALL BEING
[emphasis mine]. And the secret name (upanisad) thereof is
the reality of reality (satya sya satya : the being of
being, the truth of truth)."
IOW, the 'atman' is at basis concerned with the
transcendent world, the fountain of all things, which is
what Pirsig has described as Quality. So, before laying
down your recurring theme that people are lazy, or fools,
or fascists, or any other number of useful denominations to
denigrate opposition, I suggest you do a little homework of
your own.
>
> In one case you are right though. I didn't go into detail
about the John Wooden Leg example,
> although I thought that the corollary was reasonably
plain, and so I will hammer on this blindspot
> once again.
>
> 'Water is hot' we are taught and you take this as meaning
that we ascribe values to objects. I think
> that it was somewhere about the age of seven or eight
that what we meant by this became clear to me
> and, I suspect, almost everybody else in the world bar
those who have been brainwashed by Pirsig's
> nonsense on this matter. Temperature is an expression of
molecular kinetic energy and this can only
> be understood in RELATION to something else. Thus if I
sit on a hot stove I will gain kinetic energy
> from the stove and the stove will lose it to me. The
'hotness' is not in the stove and it is not in
> me it is in the collision of, and in the relationship
between, the subject and the object. It is
> 'in' the transfer of kinetic energy. Thus when I put my
hand under tepid water after a snowball
> fight it burns like buggery whereas if I do the same
after a sauna it will feel cold. It is
> therefore plain to anybody that when we say, 'that water
is hot,' we are not ascribing a value to an
> object or a subject but to the relationship between them.
CONTEXT AND RELATIONS ARE ALL. The whole
> world and his brother agrees with the moq that when
sitting on a hot stove the value is between the
> subject and the object and it genuinely baffles me as to
why you think your metaphysics so brittle
> that you can't concede this one obvious point for fear of
it collapsing around you.
>
You are under the great illusion that a lay-person will
understand thermodynamics, but SOM isn't about scientists,
it's about a culture. As said, it is an underlying
metaphysical assumption, and at worst Pirsig is guilty of a
bad choice of words. The definition still stands. I urge
people who are still interested in this to read Diana's
last post in the moq_focus forum.
I can concede all you want that modern science is about
relations. Every scientist worth his salt knows that he is
working with models, not with THE TRUTH. But then ? How do
this comes to solve the mind/matter dualism in your world ?
Models and relations are still safely in the mind camp, and
the relation between "real" reality and the models proposed
is as obscure as ever, don't you agree ? The models still
says that such a object is at 220°C, such another at 37°C,
and that the kinetic transfer between the two cause a burn.
Values are still assigned to objects. Even if science is
interested in the 183°C difference, how does this comes to
solve *anything* ? Thermodynamics are models, and if taken
as a subject of study, the models have no relations to what
is really taking place. The relations in your models
"mimic" the relations in reality, but the barrier still
stands. There is still no way to breach the gap, to be sure
that our models' relations are the exact replica of those
in reality. So there are still things in the mind (models
and relations), and others in "matter" (what is taking
place in "reality"). We are as estranged from "real" life
as ever. Values that aren't measurable are still left in
the shadows of a culture that fails to assign them any
worth.
SOM still stands.
> Now I know you find this confusing, or at least think
that I find it confusing, but it is not
> confusing and I am not to any extent confused. It is
crystal clear, accurate, short and concise.
> Please try and understand it before you let loose with
your ill-tempered contradictions.
No one has convincingly argued that relations *were*
reality, or that only relations measurable by scientific
procedures existed, as far as I know.
I fail to see how your insistence on relations destroy the
case for Quality whatsoever. The stove example is just as
easily replaced by a scientific experiment. The values are
the results of the experiment, and they are still assigned
to the "real" phenomena, or if you prefer to the relation
between the instruments values and the phenomena's. The
mystic view turn this around and explains that the
experiment doesn't discover the values of the phenomena (or
relations), it's the values that give people conscience of
the phenomena (or relations), and more holistically, that
it's experience that give people conscience of themselves.
No contradiction here.
>
> I suppose I shall have to defend the metaphor again. The
point being made was nothing more than that
> it is logically consistent to postulate that we think we
can choose to do things when in fact we
> can't. By extension it is logically consistent to
postulate that we can believe we have free will
> when in fact we do not. This was made in reply to the
argument that because we believe we have free
> will we do, in fact, have free will. That is all. Your
critique has no bearing on that issue and it
> is disingenuous of you to suggest I was trying to
substantiate the rest of my thesis with that one
> metaphor.
Last try : please, see the difference between : "we can
*choose* to leave the room" (always true) and "we can leave
the room" (truth dependent on context). It's easy, you
know.
>
> The rest of your posting simply reiterated your previous
confusions, thoughtless contradictions and
> amusing insults.
By insults, do you mean "fool", "fascist", "lazy" or
"suggestible" ? There is a nice proverb about removing
straws and beams from eyes, Struan. I think you should
remember it from time to time.
> As such it does not require an answer, but your final
support of Hobbes' statement
> that,' "Words are all we can discuss about," (Your
misquote not mine) almost made me fall out of my
> chair with laughter. I never ever thought that I would
see anyone who claims even a vague
> understanding of the moq suggest that linguistic analysis
is all we can discuss. My word Denis, I
> didn't for one minute think that you would be so utterly
opposed to the moq.
My, my, my. You're still not weary of purposefully
misunderstanding others, are you ?
Come on, you're not that stupid, and I'm quickly growing
tired of your little games.
Just in case you are, though, I was of course saying that
Intellect doesn't manipulate anything else than notions,
their definitions, and propositions (in the logic sense).
IOW, that accusing me of "ridiculous linguistic objections"
(which is strange since I don't think I did it in the way
you imply above) is ridiculous in its own turn because when
arguing philosophy or metaphysics or the "atman", as we
just did, definitions are everything if we want to reach
agreement. So yes, words (as representing concepts) and
their definition and their relations to one another are all
that is possible in a debate. What else are you going to
talk about ?
But of course, you had already understood this.
Denis
_______________________________________________________
Vendez tout... aux enchères - http://www.caraplazza.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST