From: Monkeys' tail or (elkeaapheefteen@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 11:46:28 BST
Hi Matt,
I'm sorry but I disagree, I think all this debating about the MOQ itself is
very useful and very important in pinning down the problems on let it be
politics or traditional morality.
(I remember a discussion which I could not locate in the archives I believe
it was calles 12 moral premises, it was quite nice and clear I believe)
I agree that it sometimes gets out of hand a little in discussing who has
the right MOQ, but this battle of different MOQ's is very valuable. You say
yourself that we have to compare our particular narratives on how the issue
fits into MOQ terms, but what you don not realise IMO is that our
perception(or sometimes conception) of the MOQ is part of this same
narrative, what we do is try to get a little more corresponding narratives
to an extend that is possible at least. I think we see better with two eyes
open, but I could be wrong on this whole narrative thing. We have to work on
the construction of the building but we have to be constantly aware of how
we paved the fundament, sometimes an issue fits the fundament perfect and
ends up rock steady, sometimes issues make you realise your buildng
collapses on a 1.2 on the Richter scale. Then you start building again. I
think and please tell me when I'm wrong that we take issues as they come and
fit them on our building(in our narrative) no matter what, even if it's as
off balance as the Pisa tower. So what we are discussing is not the
narrative but the fundaments on which we rely on in creating this narrative,
we search for some common ground.
(I am not really into this postmodern stuff yet, but it seems that people
are trying to deconstruct the dogmas, are after they did that immediately
build up antother dogma but because it is more personal and contingent, or
ironic or whatever they get so stucked up in it that cannot find a firm grip
on anything and trying with a Munchenhausen kinda trick to lift themselves
out of the swamps by creating new world or new world of vocabularies. I'm
sorry that was probably nonsense I have to get more into that critisise it a
bit constructive.)
Further you assume things I am not really sure anyone subscribes here, you
wrote;
That we treat the MOQ as an ad hoc taxonomy that splits the world into
useful distinctions, not as a metaphysics that splits the world into
discrete ontological kinds.
I really do not see what you are trying to say, I never really looked at
this way maybe that is why I do not see it. I see some discussions on how to
distinct the levels, but I think that most of us realise that the different
levels are not to be taken so precise and are certainly not perceived as
seperated states of being.
Feel free to break this post down, deconstruct please?
Davor
PS: I just read an article that was telling about Heidegger, it seems his
anti-rational philosophy is immense popular in Japan and China, anyone any
thoughts on that?
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:55 GMT