Greetings,
(Of course I agree with Jonathan's comments on mysticism - still, I digress)
JONATHAN:
"Typically, the Lila Squad has made the mistake of constantly discussing
how well we can ANSWER questions using the MoQ. Unfortunately, we have
had very few really good questions.
What sorts of questions should we be asking?"
Good to see you out of lurkerdom Jonathan. I will come to the above shortly.
JONATHAN:
">This is very central to the MoQ/SOM discussion. SOM is great for
>answering questions, but lousy at asking them. To ask a really great
>question takes . . . . INSPIRATION - computers can't do it!!!"
I quoted (and elaborated on) Bertrand Russell in my first posting on this subject and see this as
being a similar point (?):
STRUAN:
"Reason is a harmonising, controlling force rather than a creative one." Insight arrives at
what is new and reason harmonises and checks that insight by relating it to other insights.
Inspiration can be seen as mystical insight, so in that sense any metaphysics can be seen to rest
upon the mystic emotion. We need to ask the right questions in order that reason have something to
fashion. Balance, as many of us have said, is the key. So, I come to the point of your posting and
attempt to ask a 'good' question.
It seems to me that in order to establish the MoQ on a rational footing it is essential to link it
to its historical context and its relation to current ethical philosophies. With this in mind I have
posed the question of the MoQ's relationship to the three main meta-ethical positions, namely;
ethical naturalism, ethical non-naturalism and ethical non-cognitivism. Is it synonymous with any of
them? Is it apart from them? Does it throw new light upon them? As far as I can see, most people
suggest it is a form of naturalism (i.e. "truth is that which is dynamically beautiful" (Rich
Pretti)). Does it then fall to the naturalistic fallacy? If not, why not? These are questions which
strike to the heart of any system of values as they are solely concerned with the meaning of the
term, 'good,' which MUST surely be the prime concern of anyone who follows the MoQ.
If we can find an answer then we might be able to establish the Quality postulate on a rational
footing. What better question can there be than, "What do we mean by the term 'good?" This has been
tackled on a normative level, but never (as far as I'm aware) on a meta-ethical level.
Of course this is of no concern to the mystics who, as you (Jonathan) rightly point out, must reject
the whole art of persuasion and (I might add) reason.
Anyone want to start getting serious here, or are we sentenced (in the ethical sphere) to the pop
philosophy and new age trash all too common in some recent threads?
Struan
P.S. Mystic Roger, your thought experiment has been printed off but (like all of your postings) will
take much thinking about - don't forget to let Rational Roger out to play every now and then. :-)
P.P.S David, care to point out one irrational aspect to my postings, or a hint of intellectual
dishonesty? Back it up with evidence from what I write and I will take it on board, It is, perhaps,
surprising how detractors rarely quote my own words, but instead construct their own formulation
and/or context. I wonder why? :-) And I still find it astonishing to be linked so closely with Platt
considering our past debates (despite the great respect I have for his contributions).
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@shellier.freeserve.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST