Re: MD Maxwell's Silver Hammer or notes from the Bin

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 18:29:54 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD metaphysics, swords and heads"

    Erin, you take me to task on a good point, which passed me by for a
    few weeks ...

    In general on many issues I do pick people up on "unnecessary"
    dichotomies, frequently Platt as you say, because he does seem to
    express extreme black and white views on so many things, but I hope
    I'm consistent with anyone else too.

    With something as complex as a metaphysics, a theory of everything,
    like the MoQ total agreement or total disagreement would seem unlikely
    conclusions, but see later. (Platt is in fact one of those who seems
    to hold with "total agreement as written" and frequently quotes
    Pirsig's words to support his views against anyone whoi challenges
    Pirsig's words). I've said with pro vs anti MoQ stances before that
    this is better thought of as just a matter of cup half full vs cup
    half empty perspectives. Sometimes taking sides is useful, nay
    essential - but I would say my preference is to do it only when
    necessary, but not out of force of habit, and in doing so overlook the
    holistic view or the many shades of grey or "onion skins" in between
    any two extremes.

    My specific issue here is a pragmatic one. Drawing a line in the sand
    to separate two different kinds of argument - because life is too
    short, etc.

    "Pro-MoQ" means - I think the MoQ is mostly correct and valuable, with
    a few clarifications / intepretations (and resolutions of
    contradictions) that might make it better or more comprehensive.

    "Anti-MoQ" means - I think the MoQ is mostly wrong or useless, and
    here are my alternatives to kill it off and replace it completely.

    Neither is exclusive, (it's not a dichotomy being suggested) but it
    does change the style of argument - in purely practical terms. I'm of
    the former, working towards something agreeably comprehensive. With a
    metahysics, I'm not sure a curate's egg (good in parts) is a valid
    conclusion, even if it's a valid starting point.

    (PS - I answered your specific question about Quality in Ads and
    Brands in that thread, but you didn't acknowledge ?)

    Ian

    On 10/31/05, Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Ian,
    > You continually scold Platt for setting up dichotomies
    > so I don't understand why you do this...why put
    > anti-MOQ not just alternative views to the MOQ.
    > This dichotomoy seems to create a paranoia of anyone
    > who disagrees with Pirsig and isn't helpful to me.
    > But if you find it helpful then why get so upset when
    > Platt puts things into dichotomies?
    > line by the way.
    >
    > What if a person thought Pirsig contradicted himself
    > at times and you agree with him part of the time is
    > that pro-MOQ or anti-MOQ?
    >
    > Erin
    >
    >
    >
    > IAN: Nice, but of course, a closed mind is not Mark's
    > > intent as you both know.
    > > I sympathise with Mark, even if I wouldn't go so far
    > > as to announce
    > > closing my mind off to input.
    > >
    > > I did start a thread about "drawing lines in the
    > > sand" back in July /
    > > August. What I feel is worth knowing, when arguing,
    > > or choosing when
    > > not to bother, is what it is you are arguing about.
    > > Like Mark, when
    > > I'm arguing with a pro-MoQ'er, about details, is
    > > quite different to
    > > arguing with someone proposing an anti-MoQ
    > > alternative philosophy.
    > > (Though my conversations with Scott, Bo, Sam et al
    > > suggest, the
    > > difference is mainly one between a cup-half-full,
    > > cup-half-empty
    > > perspective, and a choice of language.)
    > >
    > > Post, the 2005 MoQ Conference I strongly support
    > > Mark's attempt to pin
    > > down a good working summary of what the MoQ actually
    > > is, for someone
    > > who might claim to subscribe to it. (It's open to
    > > debate, naturally,
    > > but it's a different debate.)
    > >
    > > Anything is much easier to analyse / destroy than to
    > > synthesie /
    > > construct. Evolution requires nurturing support as
    > > well as natural
    > > competition.
    > >
    > > Ian
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    >
    >

    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 Nov 21 2005 - 19:13:03 GMT