Hi Diana, Platt, 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.
>
What it means that the MoQ has to be explained in everyday language so
that it is easily and widely comprehended. Pirsig's novels are only a
start. I don't see a dialectical struggle between SOM and MoQ with one
coming out the victor. What we can hope for is a subtle rearranging of
perceptions so that MoQ concepts slip into greater prominence.
"MoQ-like" expressions are all around us; someone wins a Nobel prize for
an esoteric finding and people ask, "What's the point?". That last
question might just be a question about utility, but can also be a MoQ
question about purpose/value/meaning.
DIANA
>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.
IMO, people intuitively accept the "intuitive idea of DQ" but can't
"objectively" place it. Surely, the DQ concept can't be alien, but must
be an inherent part of our psyche.
PLATT
>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.
Right on Platt. I believe that people do have an instinctive grasp of
MoQ - or rather, MoQ is an expression of the way people *really*
understand reality.
Now let's look again at Platt's expression:
>...the objectivist assumption that all just accidentally and
>randomly emerged from some foggy potential".
Objective analysis is supposedly "dispassionate", ignoring factors
considered to be irrelevant. But it *is* prejudiced by factors
considered to be relevant. "Accidentally" implies a prior assumption of
what was supposed to happen. "Randomly" implies equal probability of any
state arising - requiring prior assumption of what constitutes the
various possible states and how they differ.
Objective analysis works very well BECAUSE it requires an *evaluation*
of relevant versus irrelevant factors. That evaluation can be justified
pragamatically, but NOT by objective logic. That's why I argue in my
essay at the Forum that scientific objectivity is really
reproducibility. That requires scientists to *state* their assumptions,
perhaps justify them pragmatically, but seldom more than that.
PLATT
>> I suggest we challenge objectivists to prove to
>> the world why this is so. ["beautifully intuitive" is
the way to reality and truth]
DIANA
>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.
Intuition is *not* subjective! Neither is it infallible. It is a Quality
tool and objectivists use it all the time. After verifying the result,
they replace the "intuition" with a reasoned justification (though the
"beauty" often remains).
Let me quote from my 7th September contribution:-
>.. Occam's Razor ... states that the
>correct explanation is the simplest one. There is no "objective" proof
>for that! It's a giant platypus - and the whole philosophy of science
>sits on it. That's why we have to go outside SO thinking to justify its
>use.
Regards,
Jonathan
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