Re: MD categorising the mental

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 11:54:11 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "MD the sam/dmb argument, part 47"

    Hi Dan,

    Sam said:
    >>As I'm in the mood for quoting things, here's one from PMS Hacker, in
    >>"Wittgenstein's place in twentieth-century analytical philosophy", p131:
    >>"...many twentieth century materialists, vehemently repudiating the
    >>Cartesian conception of the mind as a spiritual substance, retained the
    >>fundamental logical structures attributed to psychological concepts by the
    >>dualist picture, simply substituting the brain for mental substance, grey
    >>glutinous matter for ethereal stuff."
    >>[Here it seems we could substitute 'intellectual patterns of quality' for
    >>'grey glutinous matter']

    Dan said:
    > I don't think this is right. I believe the MOQ would call "grey glutinous
    > matter" inorganic patterns of value, not intellectual patterns.

    My comment may have been unclear, but it's worth spelling out what I meant:
    'intellectual patterns of quality' can be substituted for 'grey glutinous
    matter' _in_the_quote_from_Hacker_. So the quote would then read: "...many
    twentieth century materialists, vehemently repudiating the Cartesian
    conception of the mind as a spiritual substance, retained the fundamental
    logical structures attributed to psychological concepts by the dualist
    picture, simply substituting the [the third and fourth levels] for mental
    substance, [intellectual patterns of quality] for ethereal stuff."

    So it's not that the intellectual patterns = grey glutinous stuff, it's that
    the intellectual patterns stand in relation to the biological patterns etc
    in an analogous fashion to the way that Descartes described the relationship
    between mind and matter. That's what Lash (and behind him Wittgenstein) are
    trying to unpick.

    For what it's worth, I think your baseball analogy is as pure an example of
    the Cartesian theatre as it is possible to provide. To say "I'm still
    processing the experience through my senses, filtering it, ignoring most of
    what I experience in favor of what I deem important" is, it seems to me,
    100% Cartesian. That such a view seems to be grounded in the MoQ only
    confirms my impression that Pirsig's comment about S/O corresponding to
    soc/int vs bio/phys is a severely wrong turn.

    BTW this is a discussion about the categorising of the static patterns, not
    Quality "as such", so I'm completely at peace with the Quality of sausages
    :o)

    Sam

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 12:23:11 GMT