Re: MD What is the role of SO divide in MOQ?

From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 22:28:44 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD Weasel words"

    Hello,

    Bo: Dropping the S/O is neither feasible or desirable. As the
    intellectual level it may stay around, it just carries no
    metaphysical load any longer, while trying to start an Orwellian
    "newspeak" is hopeless. We may go on about mind-matter, body-
    soul and culture-nature ...etc. to our heart's delight, I have done it
    for years already.

    -=*POOT*=- Why is it not feasible? Why is it not desirable?? Why is it
    hopeless???

    ?

    >From: skutvik@online.no
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: Re: MD What is the role of SO divide in MOQ?
    >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:38:44 +0100
    >
    >Hi David M.
    >
    >12 Feb. you wrote:
    >
    > > I have switched to the discuss because we have gone
    > > off subject I feel, unless you describe this discussion as
    > > an example of changing the MOQ. Overall I feel that
    > > your concern really is about the extent of the role of
    > > the SO divide in the world as experienced via an MOQ
    > > approach. I certainly agree that whatever is useful in the SOM
    > > can be retained in the MOQ, but I see no problem with changing
    > > the language of SOM and even dropping subject and object entirely.
    >
    >Dropping the S/O is neither feasible or desirable. As the
    >intellectual level it may stay around, it just carries no
    >metaphysical load any longer, while trying to start an Orwellian
    >"newspeak" is hopeless. We may go on about mind-matter, body-
    >soul and culture-nature ...etc. to our heart's delight, I have done it
    >for years already.
    >
    > > As
    > > a philosophy student of 20 years this appeals to me because I am very
    > > aware of the SOM limitations, all around the uses of the subjects and
    > > objects language. I started off in the philosophy and history of
    > > science, spent many many years reading high German idealism, moving on
    > > to phenomenology and existentialism and getting a grip on
    > > post-modernism on the way. I wish I could use the language of those
    > > disciplines to deal with your questions/ problems but I don't think
    > > you have the background.
    >
    >Through my long Colin Wilson "career" I know enough about
    >Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre ..you name them, but the MOQ is of
    >another magnitude and makes their ways of presenting "the
    >problem" and solving it completely outdated.
    >
    > > I really recommend you read something like
    > > theCambridge companion to Heidegger's that may just about be
    > > accessible and really does a good job at explaining Heidegger's
    > > overcoming of the dualist (SOM) tradition. It is a deeper argument
    > > than Pirsig's
    >
    >Deeper argument than Pirsig! You must be joking Mr Morey. ;-)
    >
    > > but on very similar lines. In the philosophy of science
    > > there is now a very strong recognition of the problematic nature of
    > > the ideas of laws and objects. This is due to the falling away of
    > > determinism, being simply wrong as Popper says, and the more process
    > > based conceptual approaches where identifying separate objects rather
    > > than systems seems wrong headed. Popper does seem to point the way
    > > forward in his essay on propensities that Anthony also refers to. The
    > > closeness of this notion to Pirsig's static patterns is quite clear.
    > > You appeal to reason, but I take science as being exemplary here, and
    > > science is having less and less use for SOM language and categories.
    > > Essentially, I do not see why reason would lose anything if we dropped
    > > the SOM concepts entirely.
    >
    >I'm happy for you not seeing any problems here, wish I could join
    >you.
    >
    > > Heidegger's incredibly illuminating
    > > conception of what it is to be human aligns very closely with Pirsig's
    > > hints about the activities of DQ. In fact it gains significantly by
    > > overcoming the current blindspots of SOM. For further comments see
    > > below IN UPPER CASE:
    >
    > > I think your fears are unfounded, at least in my conception of the
    > > MOQ. kind regards David M
    >
    >Your praise of Paul shows that we have a totally different take of
    >it all.
    >
    >Sincerely
    >Bo
    >
    >
    >
    >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
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

    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 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 22:51:23 GMT