Hi Wim:
Thanks for a most interesting and thought provoking post. I have only a
few comments.
> 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 think we can on many occasions define facts and truth in terms of
survival rather than myth, that is, it's true that the Titanic hit and iceberg
and sank. I call it "adopt or die" reality. Call it SOM if you wish. As for
defining the direction of evolution "across the greatest span and depth,"
I believe that is Ken Wilber's myth, not the MOQ. The MOQ evolution
myth is direction away from static value patterns towards greater
freedom.
> 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).
We agree that no rational pattern of values (metaphysics) can prove its
own validity based on its own assumptions. That's shown in Godel's
Theorem. Their legitimacy comes from one's sense of a truth that lies
beyond a finite set of axioms. Some things are not provable, but we
know them to be true, like being and/or existence. Are we saying the
same thing in different ways? As mentioned here many times by many
people, intuition often works to establish one's "truth."
> 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.
Yes. I agree. A good description of SOM, a most practical way of
looking at things if you value your life.
> 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.
Yes, yes and yes. As brief and cogent encapsulation of MOQ principles
that has been my privilege to come across.
> 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.
Not only does postmodernism challenge the progression of knowledge,
it challenges the notion of knowledge itself.
>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.
I think postmodernists would argue that the MOQ is no better and
probably worse than other worldviews because it is, under the pretense
of reasoned persuasion, just another attempt by a white Western male
to exert power and dominance. You see, for postmodernists, it's all
about the wielding of power, and it is their duty to unmask the power
struggles that are the reality beneath all "texts" such as the MOQ.
Walter Olsen tells what happened at an interdisciplinary conference on
the emotions in which University of Michigan psychologist Phoebe
Ellsworth ventured some favorable comments about the experimental
method. Several audience members promptly rose to criticize her for
collaborating with a methodology so identified with white Victorian
males. Ellsworth allowed as she too had problems with some of those
dead males but that they had laid the groundwork for such crucial
accomplishments as the discovery of DNA. Came the retort, "You
believe in DNA?" Erin will be quick to point out that not all
postmodernists are so radical. But I think no one can legitimately
disagree that most in the postmodernist camp believe that "knowledge
is a construct," meaning knowledge is never true per se, but true relative
to a culture, situation, language, ideology or some other social
condition.
> 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).
I have no doubt that in some instances astrology, which I think of as
predicting one's future based on one's birthday and the arrangement of
the stars and planets, works better than psychology and sociology. My
low opinion of those two disciplines is barely containable having had
some unfortunate experiences at the hands of their practitioners. But I
wouldn't place astrology on the same plane as astronomy when it
comes to the quality of the truth patterns each claims. The physical
sciences may be based on myths just like postmodernism, astrology
and other worldviews. But some myths are better than others don't you
think?
Platt
P.S. I and I'm sure others would like to know more about your practice
as an amateur astrologer.
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