Wim and Platt,
(Just got reconnected, so apologies for jumping into the middle here.)
Wim Nusselder wrote:
> 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.'
Just for clarity, can we call these the myths of scientism, rather than
science? That lets me respect science for what it is good at, and
denounce scientism for its bad myths.
> 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."'
(To Platt:) You are misunderstanding Rorty's point here, I would guess
(not being sure of the context this was stated, but from my general
understanding of Rorty). He is not placing all areas of culture and all
periods of history as of equal value, but rather trying to say that
"closeness to reality" is a metaphysically faulty way to make
evaluations. If you want to find out things like the chemical
composition of stars, or how far away they are, then astronomy is the
way to go. If you want to understand people then astrology might be the
way to go (I have my doubts -- I prefer the Enneagram). "Reality" is --
in SOM -- an additional, and unnecessary metaphysical complication.
You (Platt) have said that you like the MOQ because (in part) it
identifies reality with Quality. So do I like the MOQ for this reason,
but in part, because Quality is beyond definition. So this
identification does two things: it denies the SOM-ish myths you decry
(as do I), AND it prevents the identification of reality with objects:
like stars-as-studied-by-astronomers. The astronomy does not change a
bit whether stars are "really" "out there" or "products of
consciousness", or anything else. They are what astronomers measure, and
what I see when I look up at night.
(Wim wrote:)
>
> 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.
(To Wim): The postmodernist (excuse the generalization) wants to drop
the idea of "objective reality" entirely. This doesn't deny such things
as that the more we study medicine, the more diseases we are likely to
find cures for. What the postmodernist -- some of them -- might point
out, though, is that maybe our obsession with germs and such is the
cause of other kinds of disease. To rid ourselves of that requires
something different than allopathic medicine. Uncertainty is not, then,
about "how close we are to the real" but more like "could I be playing
this game (whatever it is) better than I am?"
> 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.
I suspect I come close, but then I don't consider postmodernism as
"taking exception to the idea that we can experience direction...".
Those postmodernists (and yes, they exist) who claim that "all is of
equal value (because nothing is of value) have merely taken SOM to its
nihilist conclusion. The better sort of postmodernist (like, IMO, Rorty)
does not in the slightest deny that he finds some things of more value
than others. What he (in this case) denies is that that value lies in
"close approximation to reality". Nor does he deny that within a
particular activity, we can become better and better. He doesn't try to
find some absolute criterion to determine betterness, however, as he
finds the concept of "absolute" as having no value.
As I've indicated before, I regard MOQ as postmodern, because it denies
the "metaphysics of substance", that reality IS something ponderable.
Rather, when we ponder, we are pondering static patterns of quality, but
not Quality. Occasionally our pondering can take unexpected leaps: DQ,
but that is more a force behind our pondering, and not what we ponder.
I'm not sure what you mean by "adhering to postmodernism as a MoQ-based
intellectual pattern of values". I find a lot of good thinking in
postmodern writers (and a lot of bad thinking as well). But,as I said a
while back, I think it is a transition stage, more a reaction to
modernism than a going forward. As such it is necessary. I think the MoQ
has more promise, because of the Quality idea, though -- also as
mentioned before -- one can get good mileage with a Reason-based
metaphysics (like Plotinus'), mutatis mutandis, as well. In both cases,
we are hinting at (non-theistic) God.
>
> 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).
>
Like I said, I prefer the Enneagram :)
- Scott
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