Dear Platt,
You wrote 17/6 8:47 -0400:
'Among the myths of science are that the universe suddenly appeared by
chance, that matter/energy is the basis of all reality, that there is no
purpose in evolution and that the scientific method is the only legitimate
way to establish truth.'
You added 18/6 11:59 -0400:
'The metanarrative of the MOQ is that some things are better than others.'
You added 18/6 15:45 -0400:
'We agree there is no one metanarrative. Also, we agree the MOQ
doesn't present itself as the one and only metaphysics. The door to DQ
is always open. There may be a better metaphysics out there although I
have yet to find it.
But let me ask you: Do you see any difference in the assertions of truth
set forth by the metanarratives of astronomy and astrology?
Postmodernism says no. To quote one of its most famous adherents,
Richard Rorty, "No area of culture, and no period of history, gets reality
right more than any other."'
I wrote 1/5 23:52 +0200 (and repeated 18/6 7:46 +0200):
'The possibility of defining "facts" and "truth" and eradicating "bias" is a
SOM myth.
The possibility of defining the direction of evolution "across the greatest
span and depth" is the MoQ myth, that is to be unmasked by the next jump in
intellectual progress.'
I agree with what you wrote. It is (or can -with some reformulations- be
made) consistent with what I wrote. I will try to answer your question about
astronomy and astrology. Being an amateur astrologer, my answer will not be
one which you will agree with in advance. In order to discuss this
fruitfully, we need to establish a terminology in which we can express that
which we (seem to) agree on and in which we can interpret postmodernism,
astronomy and astrology in a way we can agree on.
I think we can agree that both SOM and MoQ are metaphysics that are at the
core of different intellectual patterns of values. Because metaphysics is
the core of an intellectual pattern of values and determines what valid
(truthful, high-quality) statements can be made 'inside' that intellectual
pattern of values, it can't be disputed without placing oneself outside that
intellectual pattern of values. Those that do become 'insane' if there is no
alternative pattern of values (with an alternative metaphysics at the core)
to switch to.
The ideas that determine whether a SOM-based statement or a MoQ-based
statement is valid can't be validated from 'inside' their intellectual
pattern of values. They are legitimated by repetitive telling (and can
therefore be called meta-narratives or myths) and/or by reference to a
higher value than validity/truth/intellectual quality (as meta-narratives of
myths they can be said to be 'pointing to the moon' of this higher value).
The myths of science as you formulated them are founded in the more
fundamental myth of SOM as I formulated it (the definability of facts). This
in turn can be analyzed as consisting of the ideas
1) that there is an objective reality different from our subjective
experience and
2) that we can progressively know it (even though we are subjective
subjects), because there are recognizable patterns in our cumulating
subjective experience that match patterns in objective reality.
A MoQ-based intellectual pattern of values is differs from a SOM-based one,
but it can also be seen to transcend AND include SOM-based intellectual
patterns of values (including science, postmodernism and ...
astrology). It postulates the ideas (and cannot validate them itself)
1) that there is an even more fundamental reality than objective reality
(the Quality experience that logically precedes the differentiation between
objective and subjective),
2) that the first 'structure' inherent (and experiencable) in his
fundamental reality is 'patterns' (of values) and their 'stability' (with as
a logical opposite their 'dynamic') and
3) that we can experience direction in the 'dynamics' (evolution) and
hierarchy in the 'statics' (un-equivalence) of this reality.
A first application of a MoQ (I hesitate to call it a metaphysical statement
itself; it should be possible to validate it internally) is the statement
that there are (only) four types of stable patterns of values (inorganic,
biological, social and intellectual).
A MoQ-based intellectual pattern of values can then include SOM-based
intellectual patterns of values as ... stable patterns of values of the
intellectual type that can be hierarchically and chronologically ranked.
I hope this will do as a common terminology and analytical framework.
Postmodernism -if you and Erin are right in your interpretation of if, I
know very little about it apart from what you two wrote about it- can be
seen as a SOM-based intellectual pattern of values (I wouldn't call it a
separate metaphysics), EXCEPT that it challenges the possibility of
unlimited 'progression' of knowledge. According to postmodernists what we
will know in the future about objective reality is not necessarily better
than what we know now. Collecting more/other knowledge about reality is
valuable not for the better understanding of reality, but for entertaining
ourselves and putting ourselves in perspective (which IS very valuable,
because it helps us cope with life). There will always be an irreducible
element of uncertainty, of subjectivity, in our understanding of objective
reality.
I haven't caught anyone on this list red-handed yet at adhering to
postmodernism as a MoQ-based intellectual pattern of values. I think it
would imply taking exception to the idea that we can experience direction in
the 'dynamics' (evolution) and hierarchy in the 'statics' (un-equivalence)
of patterns of values (while accepting the first 2 MoQ postulates as
formulated above). Maybe MoQ-based postmodernism wouldn't deny THAT patterns
of values migrate in (only) one direction and are un-equivalent, but only
that WE can ever agree on that one direction and on their exact hierarchy on
the basis of empirical data.
Given my confession to a MoQ and to not being a postmodernist I agree that
astronomy and astrology are un-equivalent. They can however both assert
'truth' (intellectual quality) to the extent that they are describing and
explaining different parts/aspects of reality. Astronomy describes and
explains celestial phenomena. Astrology describes and explains human
behavior and events that people bring down on themselves by this behavior.
The competitor of astrology is not astronomy, but psychology and sociology.
My experience learns me that it works in some circumstances where psychology
and sociology work less well (whereas psychology and sociology work better
in other circumstances).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:02:20 BST