I will just respond to those points I disagree with, to keep things shorter.
BTW, is this "Robert" actually IN this group to defend his viewpoint, or is
this an old-fashioned turkey shoot?
From: Platt Holden <pholden5@earthlink.net>
>Hi Robert, Roger, Magnus, Mary and Group:
>
>Robert’s challenge to the MoQ is fundamentally flawed.
>
>2. Robert ignores quantum physics when he claims, “There is a
>structure to reality apart from experience." The assumption that
>reality exists independent of observation has been proven wrong.
>Any persuasive metaphysics must acknowledge the findings of
>modern science.
I'm not an expert on physics, but AFAIK this assertion is not correct. Aside
from a general wariness about stating that physics has ever PROVED anything,
the quantum theory simply claims that "observation" is an event
fundamentally different from the normal non-observation. It is a collapse of
the waveform, rather than a Schroedinger propagation of it. I don't see that
this proves that reality is dependent of observation at all. Electrons seem
to orbit nuclei just fine without observation, for example.
(Aside: the collapse/propagation duality is interestingly similar to the
dynamic/static duality, I just noticed.)
>3. Robert claims that a growing tree that defies the law of gravity can
>be explained by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis explains how but
>doesn't explain "Why?" The MoQ answers the harder question.
But it doesn't really answer it any better. While Robert's photosynthesis
argument isn't complete, we can explain the growing tree by marshalling a
greater supply of scientific data. Photosynthesis requires light, and in a
competitive environment, some photosynthetic creatures will randomly evolve
to expend some energy in order to reach a more advantageous niche vis-a-vis
the primary light source - the sun.
The MOQ seems to claim that it's explanation is that biology is a higher
evolutionary level than inorganic matter - so therefore it can defy its
laws. That's not very satisfactory. I mean, it's an interesting idea, but
hardly an explanation of 'why'.
>4. Robert explains morality as an emanation of "sensitivity" guided
>by an "attitude of love" that "changes and flows with reality." In other
>words "if it feels good do it." I prefer a morality anchored in reason
>per the MoQ rather than a morality spewed from emotion per New
>Age psychobabble.
I thought the MOQ's morality was NOT anchored in reason, but rather viewed
as a synthesis of different levels of morality, intellectuality (i.e.
reason) being just the highest (one might ask if there might theoretically
be higher forms). Pirsig states pretty plainly, and on numerous occasions,
in Lila, that the amorality of the 20th century can be explained by the rise
of intellectualism.
- James
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 - 16:03:07 BST