Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Wed Jan 05 2005 - 21:55:38 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD Certainty - was Is Morality relative?"

    Platt you said
    Ian has this negative attitude towards me
    (a) no doubt due to my conservative political philosophy and
    (b) my open- mindedness to explanations beyond the rigidly scientific,
    (c) or beyond his notion of what constitutes pragmatic "real life."

    (And you don't I suppose, butter wouldn't melt ...)

    But, let me see

    (a) is quite possibly true, which is why we should leave these at the door,
    unless that's the subject we're discussing. I'm no anarchist but really do
    expect a bit more DQ from MoQ members.

    (b) quite untrue (and you know it) - the problem is we have quite different
    ideas about "science" - I simply think you have a much narrower definition
    of science that I do. I repeat I am as much against narrowly-objective
    "scientific" rationale, as I am an a-priori god. If anything I find you too
    objective. Better to loosen-up a narrow-minded science - put a bad science
    right, rather than plug the gaps with a god, someone said earlier.

    (c) this is the subject area where I have really tried to get you to debate
    / argue, but I find it impossible to use real-life / natural-language with
    you without smart-ass logical trip-ups at every turn, at the complete
    expense of any debate, even questions, on content. I gave you a whole list
    of "real life" contexts recently, and all you could do was make a smart-ass
    quip about "Oh I see, absolute and axiomatic."

    (I made you an offer in the previous mail.)

    Sincerely
    Ian.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 3:14 PM
    Subject: Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"

    > Hi Ham, (Ian mentioned)
    >
    > > Please accept my apologies.
    > >
    > > I have a very literal mentality that some call naive. When I asked if
    the
    > > question you last posted was rhetorical, I did not mean to impugn your
    > > sincereity. Believe it or not, I have taken the time to answer
    questions
    > > in the past that turned out to be rhetorical! Only Ian knows what might
    > > have prompted that strangely disparaging remark.
    >
    > No apology needed, Ham. Ian has this negative attitude towards me
    > no doubt due to my conservative political philosophy and my open-
    > mindedness to explanations beyond the rigidly scientific, or beyond his
    > notion of what constitutes pragmatic "real life."
    >
    > > Hoffman's quotation is such a marvelous declaration that I rushed to add
    > >it
    > > to my website. Do you have the entire quotation? I couldn't locate the
    > > passage at the various 'explore this book' sites. If you have "Visual
    > > Intelligence" (presumably a recent release) by this young author, I'd
    > > appreciate the words that appear within your elipses. (I'll add
    Hoffman's
    > > book to my reference section once I have the complete quotation.)
    >
    > You can find Hoffman's complete quote at aldaily.com, the Arts and Letters
    > website that I check out every morning because of it's ever-changing and
    > challenging intellectual content. The passage is contained under "Articles
    > of Note" in the one introduced "What do you believe to be true even though
    > you can't prove it? John Brockman asked over a hundred scientists and
    > intellectuals . . . more . . .Edge"
    >
    > > It's always exciting to see one's own concept eloquently expressed from
    > > another perspective, especially that of a scientist. (Incidentally, you
    > > should know, this is the second time I've stolen from your research. I
    > > wonder what a 'moral universalist' would say about that?!!)
    >
    > Well, I think the universal moral code would say that theft is immoral.
    > However, "stealing" from someone else's published research is what builds
    > the world's knowledge base and is therefore is not only morally
    > sanctioned, but applauded. (Of course, if you call it your own research or
    > original material when it isn't, then that would violate the universal
    > moral code of intellectual honesty.)
    >
    > I'm still mulling over your latest post addressed to me and hope to have a
    > response shortly. In the meantime, I'm glad we're on the same page when it
    > comes to entertaining the reasonable thesis that there's more to the
    > universe than physics or an engineer's "common sense" would have us
    > believe. As Pirsig says, "What, after all, is the likelihood that an atom
    > possesses within its own structure enough information to build the city of
    > New York?" (Lila, 12)
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 Jan 05 2005 - 22:03:31 GMT