From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 03:26:52 BST
On 14 Apr 2005 at 13:42, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
Pirsig stated mid-2004:
"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." [RMP letter to
Ham]
Ham noted April 14th 2005:
The author's desire is wishful thinking, however, because
qualitative attributes are precisely what the methodology of logical
positivism does not allow.
Ant McWatt comments:
Isn't it the case that if there is any "wishful thinking" happening
it is the positivist's desire for a value-free methodology as they
can not escape from saying that they think their approach is "better"
(i.e. has more value)? If you think they can escape from this
contradiction, I'm all ears. If you can't state how they can escape
from this contradiction, isn't this an indication that the MOQ is a
substantial improvement on your "Essentialist" system - at least, in
this regard?
ham:
Great question! My answer is that there is no contradiction in an
objective approach to knowledge if you believe that reality is all
"otherness", as the positivists do.
msh says:
But you're not answering the question. Furthermore, saying that "all
is otherness" is Logical Positivism in a nutshell, if it has any
meaning at all, is libelously reductive.
LPs claim that everything we know is derived from logical reasoning,
and/or empirical observation, that is, to use the jargon, all
knowledge is analytic a priori (all bachelors are unmarried men), or
synthetic a posteriori (some elephants are white). Therefore any
statement claimed to be synthetic apriori, say "God exists", is
meaningless, because denying it produces no verifiable change in our
experience.
Ant's point is that LPs can say the statements "God exists" or
"Essence exists" are meaningless, but they cannot claim that "value
exists" is meaningless since they themselves are making a value
judgement when they say their theory of knowledge is better than
others. The MOQ gets them off this hook; but Essentialism (and your
off-point answer above) does not.
I think exchanges with you would be more helpful in understanding
your position if you would freshly engage with questions, rather than
rephrase them to your liking in order to paste in some boiler-plate
from your web site.
And, FWIW, if I have a chip on my shoulder, it's only a sliver of
mild annoyance at your stealth theism.
Thanks,
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 "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." -George Orwell 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 : Fri Apr 15 2005 - 03:37:45 BST