Platt and squad
Platt Holden wrote:
> 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.
No, it's called being realistic.
Nobody would be happier than Diana than if the world would accept the
intuitive idea of DQ. True, some people do. But far too many don't. And
the reason they don't is because it goes against their objective immune
system.
> 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.
Yes but it's not the bright sparks I'm worried about. It's the unwashed
masses - they tend not to have flashes of intuitive beauty as often as
some of us. I thought LILA was great, but an awful lot of people didn't.
So what's your next move?
> I suggest we challenge objectivists to prove to
> the world why this is so.
Their answer is that it is a subjective thing and consequently cannot be
proven. It's the wrong answer, but that's their answer nonetheless.
Diana
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