Hi Peter and All
On 20 Feb 00, at 21:53, Peter Lennox wrote:
> 'fraid I have to hold my hand up to that one. But the point is that we tend
> to perceive with the equipment we have evolved with; jut because a concept
> is agreed as outdated /superceded, it doesn't mean it just goes away.
> (Popper again, on the evolution of ideas). For example, whilst most
> scientists will readily admit that Newtonian physics is not the best
> description of the physical universe, it nevertheless permeates their
> thinking in myriad, unconsidered, ways.
As with the traditional use of the personal pronoun ('I') the use of S/O terminology can be
useful and often more informative than trying to conform rigidly to a new set of ideas. But, it
should be remembered that it is often because of the continued use of those ideas, as a
primary model, that confusion arises.
> And there are sound reasons for using an inaccurate-but computationally
> inexpensive hypothesis rather than an accurate-but-unwieldy new, hypothesis
> which might have all sorts of bugs in it. It's a bit like the comparison
> between ready reckoning and precise calculations using appropriate
> instruments.both ways have their day, and it is no coincidence that sentient
> life as we know it evolved to utilise the former, first of all.
Agreed. The MoQ is (IMO) part of an evolution toward a new world view and is not yet fully
understood or appreciated. It's still a bit unwieldy and seems awkward at times, in the same
way that a child is before it learns how to walk and talk properly.
> The point I'm making here is that, just because readers of Pirsig (and
> others) agree that the subjective / objective dualism may well impede
> progress toward better understanding of our universe, that is not to say we
> can banish it completely overnight. It's embedded in our language, our
> conceptual lexicon (at quite a primitive level) and the general values of
> the societies in which we live. So, as with the story of evolution, the new
> adaptation needs to get along with the old. That was all I was trying to
> say.
My main point in bringing it up was merely to remind those using the terminology - not to
admonish or ridicule or whatever. Objectivity and subjectivity are useful in their own limited
way but as with most S/O thinking, tend to severely limit the scope of a concept and the
means of expression.
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST