From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 07:44:29 BST
Hi Ham,
> Your wording in both statements is somewhat ambiguous. My comment wasn't
> that the MoQ should be or, even could be, totally empirical; it simply
> isn't. Why would you want to "justify" making a philosophy that has
> already
> been expounded appear to be something that it is not? Short of
> manipulation with smoke and mirrors, I don't even understand how that's
> possible.
Sorry, it wasn't clear. I agree with you that making the MoQ 'empirical from
head to toe' is a mistake, and my paper is wanting to justify my assertion
that it is a mistake (and SOM). I'm not trying to justify the MoQ being
empirical.
As for the second jibe about being like Schleiermacher, that's something
which many well-informed people think I'm mistaken about. But what I'm
getting at seemed to be well brought out in the letter from him to you:
> "My problem with 'essence' is not that it isn't there or that it is not
> the
> same as Quality. It is that positivists usually deny 'essence' as
> something
> like 'God' or 'the absolute' and dismiss it [as] experimentally
> unverifiable, which is to say they think you are some kind of religious
> nut. The advantage
> of Quality is that it cannot be dismissed as unverifiable without falling
> into absurdity. The positivist cannot say, for example, that his
> experiments
> have no value, or that he does not think that anything is better, or
> worse,
> that is, of more or less value, than anything else."
I think RMP is too concerned to reply to the positivists and come up with a
position that they cannot deny. There seems, to me, to be a parallel here
with Schleiermacher and the Kantians (leaving aside some conceptual
parallels in what they argue for). I also think it concedes too much
authority to the positivists.
> Again, such statements suggest to me that you don't put much stock in
> philosophy as a rational approach to truth -- or religion either, for that
> matter. From what you've said, I take it that you'd consider yourself an
> eclectic who seeks 'words of wisdom' wherever they may be found. Not that
> there's anything wrong with that (unless, of course, it fails to satisfy
> your parishioners ;-), but I do think it falls under what RMP
> rather disdainfully called "philosophology".
>
> Anyway, I appreciate your candor in response to my question about your
> philosophical position.
Generally speaking I think reason is a tool, which can be used well or ill.
I don't see it as the yellow brick road leading us to the wizard of Oz. I
think the Pirsig of ZMM would agree.
As for finding wisdom eclectically I think DMB for one would be surprised at
that characterisation of my views. Whilst I think there are useful things to
be found in various places, I think it's more important to climb the
mountain in one tradition than to spend much time in 'compare and contrast'
between them.
Cheers
Sam
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." Ralph Hodgson
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 14 2005 - 07:47:57 BST