From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 14:54:23 BST
Matt:
Well, I don't know. I can understand the desire to say that Pirsig
illuminated, not eliminated, SOM. Usually that desire is fulfilled by
saying that Pirsig attacks reductionism, the idea that _everything_ had to
be reduced to a subject-object terminology. For instance, that's _not_ how
Bo fulfills that desire. I may be stating the obvious (but since I haven't
been following the conversation I have to), you seem to be saying something
analogous to him. That we have to start from a subject-object distinction.
[Case]
I may be saying that as an sentient being I have to start with a subject
object distinction in the same way that as a mammal I started with breast
milk. But I don't take that to mean anything special about the ultimate
nature of reality.
Matt:
For instance, this hard/soft distinction we've been using lately. The way I
take "hard distinctions" are to be distinctions that get something _right_
about reality, whereas "soft distinctions" are just used to make our way
about it. If this is the case about how you mean "hard," then that means
you think that something about reality _makes_ us use the subject/object
distinction, something about reality tells us that this is the right way to
carve it up.
[Case]
I was a bit hazy on the distinction taxonomy but I can work with that.
Although I would point out that hard distinctions can only be revealed
through the use of language which is inherently soft in this sense.
[Matt]
I don't think this is the case judging from what else you've written. For
one, you say the value you find in the MoQ "is in the way it is able to
resolve dualism into monism and show how dualistic poles function." That
doesn't sound like somebody into "hard" distinctions as defined above.
[Case]
The existance of grey does not negate the hard distinction between black and
white. Rather it reveals the range of possiblity in the relationship.
[Matt]
For two, your doubts about ever finding criteria outside of behavior for
determining somebody's inner states. Anybody who holds those doubts should
also doubt our ability to ever find criteria (outside of behavior) for
determining what kinds of distinctions reality _makes_ us use. So if you
don't mean "hard" that way, how do you mean it?
[Case]
Anyone who is not plagued by doubt has not been paying attention.
Uncertainty lies at the heart of physics and math. Doubt and the belief that
we can at least prove things to be false is what science is all about. The
only way I could know the inner condition of another would be telepathy. As
the sage Clint Eastwood put it, "A man's gotta know his limitations."
[Matt]
Further, I think you've stated SOM right, as having only _one_ subject, the
ego, but it leaves me a little uneasy with your stating that you take S/O to
be a hard distinction and Pirsig to have "illuminated not eliminated" SOM.
I think SOM so thought of is coextensive with Cartesianism (which I think is
bad). I think your further claim that "any SOM that includes a plural for
subject is way off base" is right, too. The dialectic of modern philosophy
from Descartes to now is just that example of how Cartesianism will fall
apart with more than one subject. The flight from the solitary ego to allow
for more egos has shown (so people like me think) how the Cartesian
problematic deconstructs itself once you start allowing for other people.
And the _flight_ (which was good) began because of internal problems from
the lack of criteria and the external problem of counter-intuitiveness
("Wait, you're telling me that other people don't exist?"). So that piece
of evidence makes me think you _do_ want "hard" in the bad way outlined
above, but again, your doubts about criteria leaves me thinking you must be
taking it be something else. If you do take SOM and "hard" in the bad ways,
it makes me wonder what happened to all that great stuff about
intersubjective agreement you were writing earlier?
[Case]
As you point out western philosophy has been tap dancing around Decartes for
four hundred or so years. Even Decartes tap danced around Decartes. So
rather than breaking out my boogy shoes I deal with the problem in the only
way that makes sense to me. I accept the existance of others. I accept the
existance of the material would. I believe that that I can infer things
about other subjects through referance to my own internal states.
I accept these things on Faith.
This lets me get about my business and the lingering shred of doubt keeps me
honest.
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 : Thu Oct 06 2005 - 15:20:27 BST