Hi 3WD,
I am having trouble bringing these ideas together.
Wouldn't it be MoQ with a Human Face?
Is SOM exclusively human? Is the MOQ rejecting SOM or recognizing it and
transcending and including it? If SOM is human only and MOQ includes it
then it makes sense that part of it is human only.
In the picture of the SODV paper SOM seems to be the human measuring
instruments. Recognizing that there is a reality outside of these instruments
is MOQ but how can you really reject this instrument?
I agree that animals have a social level but are less sure about an
intellectual level. Maybe it is a difference of a social level controlled by
the intellectual level and a social level that is emerging from biological
level.
Erin
3WD But like the title of Hillary
Putnam's book , under the MoQ, human reality based on human experiece is
best described as "Realism with a Human Face." Thus from a
pragmatic perspective splitting the "subject" from the "object" is not
only not possible, it is not "good", as it leads to unresolvable
paradoxes. So both Pragmatism and the MoQ while acknowledging this split
is a possiblity, rejects it, as not leading to what is worth while ,
good , or real from a human perspective.
3wd>I agree, and have argued that point here at various times, always being
>told this is not so by the opponents siting various chapters and verses.
>It is becoming more and more obvious to me that according to the MOQ and
>Pirsig the social and intellectural levels are exclusively human
>domains. I now concede the point, even though I find it logically
>inconsistent with other 'rules' of the MOQ, morally repugnant, and as
>I've said before 'smacks of Judeo-Christian dogma.'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST