Hello everyone
Walter writes:
>Hi Glove, Dave, (and others)
>
>Glove, you're absolutely right wipping my ass about the definition of
>Idealism, seeing I did a lousy job.
Hi Walter
Hopefully you are just kidding here because I certainly meant no disrespect
to you in my reply. Thank you for making me think!
>Walter:
>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.
Glove:
On the contrary, I think you have brought us, or at least me, closer to an
understanding of what it is that separates our opinions here.
>Walter:
>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.
Glove:
I can agree with you on this, but it seems to me that if you accept this
line of reasoning, then
it also follows that time cannot be known as an external reality
"independent" of our consciousness. Time as we understand it is in fact
dependent upon our consciousness of it.
>Walter:
>
>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.
Glove:
If you leave out the words "although external" I can agree with you on this.
>
>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.
Glove:
I can go along with this, Walter. In fact you are probably explaining it
much better than I am. I leave you with a quote from one of my favorite
authors:
No permanence is ours; we are a wave
That flows to fit whatever form it finds;
Through day or night, cathedral or the cave
We pass forever, craving form that binds. (Hermann
Hesse)
Best wishes,
glove
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