Hi Glove, Dave, (and others)
Glove, you're absolutely right wipping my ass about the definition of
Idealism, seeing I did a lousy job. The reason for this is that I wanted
to talk about the definition of Realism, therefore spending too little
time on
Idealism. Furthermore I translated it so badly that you'd almost think
half the middle east are philosophical Idealists ;-)
I wanted to avoid confusion and in stead I made us sink further away in
it.
I was also wrong, because I thought Idealism was rejecting every form of
'outside' reality, whereas this is not true. Furthermore, the real
opposite of
Idealism is not Realism, but Materialism and the term Realism has so
many
senses that it's bound to create confusion.
Let's try again.
>From my prejudice about Idealism I wrote:
> As I see it Idealism excludes Realism but Realism doesn't exclude
> Idealism in the sense that the [intellectual] patterns within human
consciousness
> itself can also be part of reality. Probably many Realists didn't go
that far.
Dave wrote:
> I'm starting to think ... that when dealing with the levels the
Realist's
> are more closely right on 1 & 2. while the Idealist's are more closely
> right on 3 & 4.
A part of the Realists don't see levels 3 & 4 as part of reality
(Materialism).
A part of the Idealists don't see levels 1 & 2 as part of reality
(Subjectivism/Solipsism).
However, as far as I know neither Realism or Idealism excludes any of
the levels necessarily.
Let's go back to Pirsig's quote:
> > >But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself comes
> > >before the external world, not after, as is commonly presumed by
the materialists
I don't think Pirsig's intention with this quote was to indicate that
time is a
conceptual agreement. I rather think that he wanted to show that the
external reality
can never be known to human consciousness *independent* of the nature of
this
consciousness.
Reality known to the human consciousness is 'influenced' by the very
structure that accounts for this consciousness and in that sense the
reality known to the human consciousness, although external, always
comes *after* the intellectual patterns formed.
Let me know what you think, guys.
Glove wrote:
> If we view the external world as something separate and apart from the
self
> then we will argue endlessly over whether or not a squirrel, a cell,
an
> atom, etc., has intellect. When it is realized that the external world
is
> not separate from self, then the intellect question never arises.
I see what you mean, Glove, but there is a third possibility. Realizing
that there is
an external world AND that at the same time this external world is NOT
separated
from the self, but that the self is an extention from this external
world.
Dtchgrtngs
Walter
Ps Where is everyone? Are they giving away fish for free somewhere?
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:55 BST