LS Re: PROGRAM Explain the subject-object metaphysics

Bodvar Skutvik (
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 03:54:20 +0100

Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:02:43 +0000
Martin Striz <> closed his message thus:

> The mind/body problem is also derived from this assumption because it
> arises when we assume that reality is primarily BOTH subject and object,
> one and many. Then we say that the part of reality that corresponds to
> the subject is the mind, soul, etc., and the part that corresponds to
> the object is anything besides the mind (which includes the body).
> So I think it can be seen that there are a whole host of dichotomies
> that can be derived from this subject/object assumption that most people
> make unknowingly. Perhaps they make it unknowingly because they have
> been trained to think that way through language?

Hi Martin and Squad.
I want to congratulate you on the QM and mind/body entries of last
week, and now on the subject/object metaphysics itself. Your
exposition on how the SOM constitutes our reality and has given birth
to twins in an unending stream is just spot on. Each pair is untenable
and barren when examined thoroughly, but it is so deeply ingrained
that it's invisible: the way things are from eternity.

One of the dualities that hasn't been up to scrutiny before is the
nurture vs nature riddle of sociology. Are humans a product of
heritage or society? This maddening question has seesawed back and
forth for centuries without getting closer to a settlement. Back in
the fifties and sixties it was society (Skinner), but now it is back
to nature. Genes are found for sexual preferences, for smoking and
for stammering and for every urge we feel.

The one who wants to be absolutely safe answers that we are
determined by both factors, but for the first: If there are two, one
HAS to be the major one, it's simply impossible that two can balance
each other out exactly. For the second, it is no less lacking freedom
than each of the other alternatives, and counter to what we
feel in our marrows: THERE IS FREEDOM.

When this makes it's way into the judiciary system it wrecks havoc.
In the name of humanism lawyers are trying to hawk man's greatest
asset, but when this meets another unyielding principle; that of
responsibility, the mess is complete. Ken Clark has shown how hard it
is to introduce freedom/indeterminism into the physical realm, but
the same problem follows the SOM into every -ology there is.

Thanks Martin.

TO BE IS TO DO (Socrates)
TO DO IS TO BE (Sartre)
DO BE DO - BE DO (Sinatra)

(sign seen in a bar)

post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST