Re: MD Self-consciousness

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 19:37:32 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Re: Anthony asks What are Values?"

    Scott

    Does an animal have naive realism?
    If not when does man acquire it?

    Doesn't Husserl bracket this to get at a more
    primordial theory-free experience?

    regards
    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:12 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness

    > David,
    >
    > By "natural attitude" (I think the phrase is Husserl's, albeit in
    > translation) I am referreing to what is also called naive realism. How we
    > think about things before we learn any philosophy.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:41 PM
    > Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness
    >
    >
    > > Scott
    > >
    > > A natural attitude? Not sure about primitive man,
    > > what about magic, participatory thinking, animalism?
    > >
    > > Surely identity begins when we say here I am there is
    > > not-me. But prior to that is unity/Oneness which is
    > > what Pirsig means by quality?
    > >
    > > DM
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:21 AM
    > > Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness
    > >
    > >
    > > > David,
    > > >
    > > > The difference in seeming needs no unpacking. It is the "natural
    > > attitude".
    > > > I think, to praraphrase Nagel, that there is something that it is like
    > to
    > > be
    > > > me, and that something is different from my experience of rocks and
    > trees.
    > > >
    > > > The question I am presenting to the MOQ is: does the MOQ explain these
    > two
    > > > seemings? My answer is no. It assumes one and ignores the other.
    > > >
    > > > I said you missed the point because I was simply noting that in the
    > > natural
    > > > attitude there are two seemings. You then went on at length how
    > > > philosophically, one can put these seemings into question. Of course
    one
    > > > can, but my point is that the MOQ does so in a way that simply denies
    > one
    > > of
    > > > them, whereas I think one shouldn't do that. Instead, I recommend
    > treating
    > > > them as a contradictory identity.
    > > >
    > > > - Scott
    > > >
    > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 3:26 PM
    > > > Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > Scott
    > > > >
    > > > > You're missing mine. I want you to unpack the distinction because
    > > > > I cannot see how you can justify it. But maybe we are using terms
    > > > > differently, if you unpack it, maybe I can understand what you are
    > > > > doing wrong, or understand what I have got wrong.
    > > > >
    > > > > regards
    > > > > David M
    > > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > > From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    > > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:10 PM
    > > > > Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > David,
    > > > > >
    > > > > > You're missing my point here. Yes the me/not-me distinction needs
    a
    > > LOT
    > > > of
    > > > > > unpacking, but first it has to be acknowledged, and it is that
    > initial
    > > > > > acknowledgment that I see Pirsig as avoiding in his eagerness to
    > > unpack
    > > > > SOM,
    > > > > > and so throwing a contradictory baby out with the bathwater.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > - Scott
    > > > > >
    > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > > > From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    > > > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:13 PM
    > > > > > Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > Hi Scott
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > This is interesting because unusually I disagree with you.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Scott: By "inside" and "outside" I am referring to the fact that
    > in
    > > > > sense
    > > > > > > > perception I experience things that seem to be not me, while
    in
    > > > > thinking
    > > > > > > I
    > > > > > > > experience things that seem to be me. Pirsig does not pay
    > > attention
    > > > to
    > > > > > the
    > > > > > > > existence of those two very different kinds of seeming, in
    > effect
    > > > > > assuming
    > > > > > > > that one (sense perception) is basic, and the other an
    illusion
    > > > (note
    > > > > > that
    > > > > > > I
    > > > > > > > am referring to the *seeming* as illusory, not the actual
    > > thinking).
    > > > > > Hence
    > > > > > > > my accusation of nominalism, and that by ignoring the two
    types
    > of
    > > > > > seeming
    > > > > > > > he is not being empirical.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > David M: I think this me/not-me distinction needs unpacking.
    There
    > > is
    > > > > > > certainly
    > > > > > > a distinction between what I can will to respond/have agency
    with
    > > all
    > > > > the
    > > > > > > time,
    > > > > > > i.e. my body, but my car can also start to feel like a body when
    I
    > > > drive
    > > > > > it
    > > > > > > so much.
    > > > > > > People with artificial limbs controlled by brain waves have
    > > certainly
    > > > > > > reported feeling
    > > > > > > like they became part of their body, and in a way we can gain
    > agency
    > > > > over
    > > > > > > anything
    > > > > > > in our environment with the necessary energy/tools. Sure you can
    > lay
    > > > > cliam
    > > > > > > to your thoughts
    > > > > > > but I often feel like they are something that flow through me
    and
    > > are
    > > > > > > connected in ways
    > > > > > > that I cannot entirely account for in terms of any sort of
    > > > progression.
    > > > > It
    > > > > > > seems hard to say that
    > > > > > > we cause thinking or if thinking just happens to us, is thinking
    > > ours
    > > > or
    > > > > > is
    > > > > > > it a gift from out
    > > > > > > of nothing/transcendence? I certainly see thinking/perception as
    > > > > entirely
    > > > > > > enmeshed, do you
    > > > > > > really think Pirsig gives priority to perception?
    > > > > > > Quality=reality=expereience. And this is as much stuff-in-the-
    > > > > > > world as it is stuff-in-your-head. Head-experience-world are
    > pretty
    > > > > > > inseperable I suggest.
    > > > > > > Sure, Pirsig has a go about thinking as reasoning, becuase a lot
    > of
    > > > what
    > > > > > we
    > > > > > > experience is very
    > > > > > > spontaneous and has little to do with deliberating-thinking. But
    I
    > > > think
    > > > > > the
    > > > > > > whole of perception/the body
    > > > > > > exhibit vast amounts of intelligence, otherwise of course you
    > would
    > > > not
    > > > > > see
    > > > > > > a thing. Merleau-Ponty is
    > > > > > > very very good on this. I think your argument with Pirsig is
    > because
    > > > > > > sometimes he is using a narrow
    > > > > > > sense of thinking as theory-deliberate-thinking and you want to
    > talk
    > > > > about
    > > > > > > the broader intelligence-perception-
    > > > > > > thinking. Surely primitive man has onlt the one type of
    > > > > > > particpatory-seeming, and this is what Pirsig is getting
    > > > > > > at when he says quality, quality begins with primordial
    > > > > non-distinguished
    > > > > > > reality, pretty hard for any of us
    > > > > > > to get with thse days, deep meditation seems the best way,
    > dropping
    > > > all
    > > > > > your
    > > > > > > presuppositions is very hard,
    > > > > > > Heidegger, for me, pushes hardest in this direction.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > regards
    > > > > > > David M
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > > > > From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    > > > > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:51 PM
    > > > > > > Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > David,
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > Scott (I think):Nevertheless, this attitude seems to me to
    > more
    > > > than
    > > > > a
    > > > > > > > > little
    > > > > > > > > nominalist, since it looks to that which comes from the
    > outside
    > > as
    > > > > > > > > privileged over that which comes from the inside.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > What is this outside/inside distinction,
    > > > reality=quality=experience
    > > > > > > > > we experience, there is no inside or outside, it is
    > outsideless.
    > > > > > > > > We can create a theoretical cosmic story but we can not
    > > > > > > > > experience anything outside of experience, I suggest, pretty
    > > > > > > > > obvious really.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > By "inside" and "outside" I am referring to the fact that in
    > sense
    > > > > > > > perception I experience things that seem to be not me, while
    in
    > > > > thinking
    > > > > > > I
    > > > > > > > experience things that seem to be me. Pirsig does not pay
    > > attention
    > > > to
    > > > > > the
    > > > > > > > existence of those two very different kinds of seeming, in
    > effect
    > > > > > assuming
    > > > > > > > that one (sense perception) is basic, and the other an
    illusion
    > > > (note
    > > > > > that
    > > > > > > I
    > > > > > > > am referring to the *seeming* as illusory, not the actual
    > > thinking).
    > > > > > Hence
    > > > > > > > my accusation of nominalism, and that by ignoring the two
    types
    > of
    > > > > > seeming
    > > > > > > > he is not being empirical.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > - Scott
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > 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
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > 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
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > 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
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > 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
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > 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
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 19:43:32 GMT