Re: MD Our Immoral Supreme Court

From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 14:43:30 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Art and the MOQ"

    Hi everyone,

    Arlo said:
    > I'm going to take a small point of contention here. While there are many on
    > this list who, by recent posts, are interested in epistemological issues
    > surrounding the MOQ, there are also those of use who are (speaking for
    > myself, of course) interested also in a praxiological discussion
    > (transformative practice rather than theory) relating to an adoption of MOQ
    > views. Towards this end, sociological and even political issues are
    > interesting.

    All power to you, Arlo! I'm theoretically-minded, so it was inevitable
    that I'd get a little hung up on questions surrounding the SOL, but I
    totally support your efforts to apply the MOQ to current issues. The
    MOQ is worse than useless if not used in a practical sense.

    Arlo continued:
    > The point of agreement made with Platt was expressed by most who took
    > exception only to the derivative analysis of the decision. That is, if I
    > posted that the court's decision was immoral, according to the MOQ, and
    > what led to this decision was small children who watched Barney, you'd
    > likely point out that while my evaluation of the ruling was correct, the
    > analysis used was quite absurd.

    Sure. It's not the disagreement and debate itself that I take issue
    with. It's the smug, condescending impression that I perceived in Mark
    Maxwell's and MSH's initial responses, which unsurprisingly caused
    Platt to respond along the hackneyed and meaningless battle-lines I've
    come to recognise. I completely accept the validity of the general
    frustration with Platt, as expressed by MSH, but by tainting otherwise
    excellent counter-arguments with condescension, you only perpetuate
    the frustration.

    Now, Mark Maxwell has since followed up with a really interesting,
    thought-provoking post - one that Platt won't be able dismiss as empty
    "Commie" rhetoric.

    MSH stated elsewhere:
    > Defending or ignoring repeated postings of opinion, when such
    > opinions have been challenged yet remain unsupported, seriously
    > erodes the integrity of this list.

    I agree. I have no problem at all with the challenging of Platt's
    views. But please remember that the *way* in which people are
    challenged has as much impact on the course of the discussion as the
    actual content of the challenge.

    Regards,
    Mike

    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 Jul 01 2005 - 15:33:47 BST