From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 15:41:56 BST
Hi Mark, Wim,
Catching up with this one.
> msh 7-30-05:
> Ok, I see your point. Let's agree that actions can be evaluated as B-
> D, S-D, I-D, and we'll forget about individuals. Just so we can be
> clear on how actions are to be classified, let's imagine that we are
> told by trusted authorities that our planet is being invaded by inter-
> galactic forces bent on destroying us. How would you classify the
> following actions:
>
> 1) Huddling in a a cave with a stockpile of guns and ammo
> 2) Passing laws to insure that inter-galactic travel is highly
> regulated
> 3) Seeking to verify that the the threat is real, before opting for
> 1, 2, or some other course of possibly exacerbating action.
>
> If we can agree that 1 is B-D, 2 is S-D, and 3 is I-D, then I think
> we can proceed.
Now then, I'm not sure this all follows. I'm happy to accept that 3 is I-D
and 2 is S-D (law being by definition S-D), but option 1 could - in
particular circumstances - be the most I-driven option. Have you seen the
latest 'War of the Worlds' - I didn't think the Tim Robbins character was
quite as mad as we were clearly meant to consider him. But perhaps I just
share his madness...
I'm sure we can agree on an example which was B-D in this situation. How
about 'doing nothing except seeking food and shelter'?
<snip the Pons/Fleischmann stuff - Ian has taken that on, and he's in a
better position to comment than I am>
> sam 7-30-05:
> I would suggest a simpler description of the intellectual level:
> participation in the intellectual level is possible in so far as the
> participant can accept the truth "I might be wrong" (and that is an
> index of emotional maturity). There is then the possibility of a
> genuine intellectual exchange. As soon as someone tries to shut down
> a dialogue by appeal to prejudice then we have a reassertion of
> (normally) S-D behaviour, wouldn't you agree?
>
> msh 7-30-05:
> I don't see how anything in my protocol of intellectual discussion
> can be said to "shut down a dialogue by appeal to prejudice."
As you said to me - relax! It wasn't a comment aimed at you.
> I'm also not sure why emotional maturity should be a factor in
> arriving at truth, (is this one of those Eudaemonic things?), but I,
> for one, have no problem accepting the possibility that I might be
> wrong. I've been proved wrong so many times I have a big "W" branded
> on my ass. The thing is, you need to prove me wrong, using the
> intellectual protocol suggested above.
Which seems eminently reasonable to me.
> Here's where I laid out the
> protocol:
>
> Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have disagreements about
> what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but, among intellectuals,
> there is a certain procedure for working this out for themselves:
> discussion and arguments, based on evidence, derived from experience.
>
> Can you accept this protocol? If so, we can proceed.
I think I would want to add something in about aesthetics, and also that
someone can remain attached to their position even when the evidence is
against them - and yet be proven right in the long run. In other words, I
want to explicitly respect the sovereignty of individual conscience. I see
this as the consequent of accepting the notion 'I might be wrong'. In other
words, just because I have made an absolute knock down argument and you're
impersonating the Black Knight ('Look you stupid bastard you've got no arms
left....') _doesn't_ actually mean that I'm right. It just means that, on
the evidence so far, the higher quality arguments go one way not another.
But we've got to leave room for DQ, and humility.
Other than that, fine. Let's get on with it.
Sam
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 : Mon Aug 08 2005 - 12:30:45 BST