From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 15:14:32 BST
Hi Matt,
I'll try to respond to the last long part of your last long post.
On 17 May 2005 at 21:12, Matt Kundert wrote:
So I don't know where this leaves us, Mark. At first blush, you seem
to think that some of my arguments are about your "style," when they
are all commonly arrayed against the same set of Enlightenment-style
assumptions that let's you call _anything_ universal, anything that
sets up epistemological or metaphysical foundations. And when you
want me to engage you, you deprive me of some of the weapons I
consider fundamental, basically claiming they are just part of my
"style." I don't think they are.
At any rate, I don't know if our conversation can go on because I
don't even know what we could talk about. The last three stages of
our conversation have left me so befuddled on what I'm supposed to
think of where you are philosophically, that I don't really want to
venture anymore guesses. I have almost no bead on how to interpret
you philosophically. We could start again from the beginning, but
we'd have to pick some topic to start talking about, and I don't
have any suggestions. I know you'd much rather be talking about
politics, but I'd much rather be talking about (the very idea
of) epistemology/metaphysics. I thought we were talking about some
intersection between the two, but I'm not even sure about that
anymore.
msh says:
Well, it's clear to me that you disagree with my metaphysical
assumptions, I just don't know why you disagree, and, so far, in your
discussions with me, you haven't spelled out your own assumptions and
why you think they make a better metaphysical foundation.
So our discussion, if you want to pursue it, will have to start with
us clarifying our different metaphysical assumptions. I believe mine
have been made pretty clear: evolution is better than stasis, we
humans are evolving toward becoming FRH, some things serve evolution
better than others, etc. But, of course, I will try to answer any
questions you have about them. Once I understand your assumptions,
our argument can be about which of our two metaphysics best reflects
the reality of the world we share in common.
But I understand that you may not want to have that discussion, and
that's fine.
matt:
I guess (possibly the last) thing I have to say is that, when you
mentioned that "I think Pirsig opened a can of worms when he left his
Holy trinity of SOQ and tried to make Quality the primary source," it
might interest you that Thomas Op de Coul said things along those
lines in his Forum essay, "Herds of Platypi," and I made a few
comments about that idea in my review of his paper.
msh:
Thanks for the references; I'll take a look.
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 “Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.” - Arthur Miller 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 May 18 2005 - 15:17:01 BST