From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 00:52:56 BST
Platt,
Just when we're getting along so well you have to throw in rhetorical
jibes at "some people" on the most controvesial subject of the day ...
I almost despair ... beginning to look like Steve's advice on "ignore
him" might have to prevail, yet again.
Anyway, one last go.
A good explanation / rationale ... you say ...
Experience, (If you have it)
Logical Consistency, (Next to worthless)
Economy, (Less is more, but careful with that razor, Occam)
No quality then ?
Ian
On 8/16/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian:
>
> > The main point - is about "combining" the best of both worlds,
> > aesthetic and logical postivist ...
> >
> > So far so good.. Clearly a central point in the MoQ space, but it
> > seems we have a difference in what "combining" means.
> >
> > You seem to suggest having them both in your toolbox is combining
> > them, so that you can apply the aesthetic to "art" and the logical
> > postive to apply objectively in "rational debate". Each remains a
> > distinct component in your combination ? You still have distinct
> > subjective and objective view points ?
> >
> > My view of combining them is as some fusion into a single tool, so
> > that "rational debate" benefits from more that logic. A higher
> > "quality" reasoning, that is neither objective nor subjective.
> >
> > You might think I'm hopelessly misguided in that view, but I'd still
> > be interested to know that you get the point I'm making. (As you know, I
> > prefer to synthesise than analyse and I'm looking for something to build
> > on.)
>
> I think we can both admire Pirsig for doing what you suggest in his two
> books -- rational argument benefiting from more than logic. I considered
> both ZMM and Lila to be works of art. Whether the same can be accomplished
> here in a discussion group is doubtful although at times there have been
> posts to the MD that approach the poetic (none I can point to offhand, but
> the impression remains). What concerns me about a rhetorical approach to
> rational debate is the substitution of rhetoric for thinking. Right now,
> for example, some people are in a swivet about "racial profiling" whereas
> a little common sense would lead one to believe that searching
> grandmother's pocketbook is not likely to catch a suicide bomber and save
> lives. So I prefer to follow Pirsig's advice in seeking truth -- agreement
> with experience, logical consistency, and economy of explanation.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Aug 17 2005 - 01:33:21 BST