Hi Diana and LS:
There’s no plainer challenge than the one posed by Diana: "If we
are to convince the world that the MoQ is better than the SOM
then we need to prove that DQ is not subjective, and I mean prove
it on their terms, i.e., 'objectively.'"
To do that, you have to go all the way back to fundamental
assumptions.
If you believe the assumption held by most objectivists that the
universe began with an uncaused Big Bang and has since evolved
purely by chance without any purpose, then you'll never be
convinced that the MoQ has anything to offer other than drivel
for sophomoric dormitory bull sessions.
It's impossible to prove DQ objectively against the objectivist
immune system. Pirsig gave it a try early on in LILA with the hot
stove example. If you want objective proof of DQ go sit on a hot
stove. You'll dynamically get your self off-- predictably,
verifiably, reproducibly, unambiguously--all the requirements of
proof to the objectivist mind. Yet such proof will be ignored
because the objectivist mind does not WANT to believe that
"Quality is a separate category from subjects and objects."
But the premise that bothers me more than the objectivist
assumption that all just accidentally and randomly emerged from
some foggy potential is Diana's premise that the MoQ will only be
taken seriously if and when it's presented in classical terms.
That's accepting the objectivist premise that only the rational
is meaningful. Nonsense. What does a rose mean?
Instead, I begin with premise that no premises are to be taken
seriously that fail to explain why reality appears to be the way
it is. In other words, I ask my objectivist friends how they can
take evolutionary theory "seriously" when they can’t answer the
question, "why evolve?"
We don't have to defend or explain the MoQ to anyone. Rather,
objectivists have a lot of explaining to do to us--like, why is
half an eye useful, how does randomness result in order, what
went bang during the Big Bang, how does the brain organize the
data of the senses, why can't reason and mathematics prove their
own validity, etc. (I've got a list of 23 such questions.) Most
of all, get them to explain values, i.e., why are some things
better than others, including their explanations.
Once Diana wrote: "When you read it (LILA) from cover to cover it
seems beautifully intuitive." There it is--DQ! There's your
fundamental premise. If you want to spread the word about the
MoQ, convince the world that what is "beautifully intuitive" is
the way to reality and truth. Actually, at least half the world
is already convinced. And even diehard objectivists will admit
that most of their best ideas came to them in a flash of
intuitive beauty. I suggest we challenge objectivists to prove to
the world why this is so.
Best, Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST