From: max demian (oikoumenist@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 17:08:35 BST
I am embarrassed to ask but what does SOM mean? I’ve been an
observer-participant of this for awhile but haven’t figured. What is its
definition and what does it mean?
Your servant,
Max
>From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD Contradictions
>Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:10:42 +0000
>
>David Buchanan quoted Ken Wilber April 2nd 2005:
>
>"This is why postmodern pluralist have always had difficulty explaining why
>we should reject the Nazis and the KKK - if all stances are equal, why not
>embrace them? A perspectival madness. Thus, under the important truths of
>relativism, pluralism and cultural diversity, postmodernism opened up the
>world to a richness of multiple voices, but then stood back to watch the
>multiple voices degenerate into a Tower of Babel, each voice claiming to be
>its own validity, yet few of them actually honoring the values of others.”
>
>David then stated:
>
>“This is the point I was getting at in saying that Pirsig accepts these
>postmodern insights but doesn't just leave it hanging there. And here maybe
>you can see what I mean by the suggestion that postmodernism hasn't really
>escaped SOM. It rejects objectivity in favor of subjectivity, rejects the
>myth of the given in favor of sheer interpretation. It doesn't get us out
>of that box so much as move us to the opposite corner of the box. And more
>than that, it does not solve the problems of modernity so much as
>exaggerate them. Satanists think they have utterly rejected Christianity
>but have in fact only embraced its mirror image.”
>
>Ant McWatt comments:
>
>David,
>
>Thank you very much for highlighting this very important point.
>
>Gavin Gee-Clough mentioned to me some time ago that students in Australian
>philosophy classes were being fed these post-modernist insights (which are
>fine as far as they go) but being left in a state of existential angst.
>The MOQ is, of course, valuable in this regards as it shifts our
>metaphysical foundations from the single truth of modernism to the gradable
>truths of the Good. As the MOQ indicates, many truths do not entail that
>“anything goes” or that you have to become a victim of existential angst.
>Of course, Rorty & co overlook the Good (largely down to their parochial
>world view) so lead their supporters up the proverbial river without a
>paddle.
>
>I also note that in his last post (of April 5th) to you, Matt has also
>completely avoided your point that a “person has to be fairly oblivious to
>deny the connection between philosophy and politics. I think that anyone
>who keeps up with current events could hardly fail to notice that
>contemporary philosophy is overwhelmingly political… Being against the
>postmodern movement that presently dominates our institutions of higher
>learning has real cash value in our society. It’s central to the culture
>wars so that the Republican Party more or less defines itself by being
>against everything you're pushing.”
>
>Again, this is another reason why Rorty needs to be rejected out-of-hand.
>As I mention in my PhD thesis this Ostrich approach to politics by
>philosophers is naive and dangerous and I particularly dislike Rorty for
>putting such ideas in young people when they should be at the most
>outspoken and radical stage in their lives.
>
>David Buchanan further stated April 2nd 2005:
>
>“You can choose to believe that these objections are only based on a
>misunderstanding, but at least I have tried to show you specifically what
>it is that you are not seeing. And I would point out that I am not the only
>critic of this stance. As Ant mentioned, there is Pine for starters.”
>
>Unfortunately, David, it appears that over a year after being introduced to
>Professor Ronald Pine and his mentor Larry Laudan, there is still no
>indication that Matt has read their texts (or my later suggestion of
>Professor David E. Cooper’s excellent text “The Measure of Things”) which
>critique post-modernism. I think any genuine supporter of Rorty would
>examine the arguments of these professional critics carefully and attempt
>to provide a response to them. It’s one thing to present the ideas of
>Rorty to a non-professional Discussion group devoted to another
>philosopher, it’s another thing to deal with critics who have an in-depth
>interest in the subject. As I noticed Rorty comes off very badly with the
>latter.
>
>Anyway, keep up the good work, David, it’s very much appreciated.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Anthony.
>
>
>“Instead of just deconstructing the power structures of the past, there has
>to be a construction project too. Instead of declaring an end to
>philosophy, we ought to be putting the pieces back together. I think this
>is what Pirsig, Wilber and others are trying to do. See, one need not be a
>right-wing geezer crank. There is a honest to goodness philosophical case
>to be made against this kind of paralyzing nihilism.” (David Buchanan,
>April 2nd 2005)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
>http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Thu Apr 07 2005 - 18:27:23 BST