Re: MD DQ & emergence

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2004 - 00:49:33 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise - Memes and Dawkins"

    Hi Mel, and all,

    Thanks for the links re Emergence, and your other ideas, which will
    take a little time to ponder. Two quick things for now:

    1) IDEOLOGY
    Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy
    Pronunciation: "I-dE-'ä-l&-jE, "i-
    Variant(s): also ide·al·o·gy /-'ä-l&-jE, -'a-/
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
    Etymology: French idéologie, from idéo- ideo- + -logie -logy
    1 : visionary theorizing
    2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or
    culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an
    individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories
    and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
    - ide·ol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

    This is the complete listing from current Mirriam-Webster. I guess
    2c comes closest to the definition you provide, though still nothing
    about commitments or causes: IDEOLOGY - The body of ideas reflecting
    the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or
    culture. "American Heritage Dictionary" c 1973

    My guess is that even in the 30-year old listing in AH, this is not
    the primary definition. I see where one definition might have the
    flavor you suggest, but not how rational discussion, even if
    ideological in your sense, would have a negative effect in discussing
    the MOQ or anything else.

    2) ON CHOMSKY
    I believe I've read most of what he's written, and heard or read most
    of his interviews and debates. We're talking about THOUSANDS of
    hours of material. I've never seen him respond to an argument with
    ad hominem attack. NEVER. Once in a great while subtle digs and
    insults have been traded off-point, often humorously, but never
    instigated by him, and never in place of answering an argument.

    Therefore it seems incredible that your one exposure to his thinking
    would show him dodging an argument with ad hominem attacks. Do you
    remember where and when you heard or read this?

    Anyway, even if such an exchange exists (I highly doubt it), this
    hardly seems reason enough to dismiss his quite remarkable
    contributions to linguistics, cognitive science, and political
    philosophy. My experience has been that people avoid what they
    perceive as dissenting opinion for reasons of their own ideology, now
    using the word in your sense. You and Platt Holden outta get
    together and go bowling. ;-)

    Thanks again for your thoughts.

    Best,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
    everything."  -- Henri Poincare'
    MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward  - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2004 - 01:17:06 BST