From: Destination Quality (planetquality@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 09:55:04 BST
"A philosophic tradition of scientific value-neutrality would argue that you
cannot say these value patterns are better . . . because scientifically
speaking in the real world nothing is better than anything else."
Platt
Hi here Platt,
I do not know what this precisely means, I interpret it thus; science denies
the existence of value therefore it cannot say that something is better than
anything else.
But.....science does actually work with value under the light of the MOQ. In
an SOM context the object is neutral but in an MOQ context it is not. I
think and unless the MOQ is a orthodox Darwinian philosophy where only the
physically strongest survive it is more moral for a doctor to sustain and
extent the life of an living individual rather than a dead one proving the
actual morality of medical science. Medical science is the most moral
science imaginable I think, and maybe docters cannot give you the
theoretical framework to prove that their science is good, science itself
has proven to be good. You confuse medical science with <metaphysical>
science, though medical science borrows from <metaphysical science>, it is
not the same and all medical science is trying to do is help people.
This is all fine but this is not the actual core of the problem, the core is
that you do not want to see the contingency of the language you use and the
context wherin it is used. I was trying to prove that but as I could have
predicted in vein because you missed it completely. You are basically
trapped in SOM for you do not want to admit that words are an arbitrary
attribution that finds its roots in fixed conventions(spov)that are always
open to attacks if something better comes along(dq). Yoy want the words to
correspond with the underlying reality, that the words cling to it, Why is a
cat a cat? Not because the word cat says something about the actual cat but
by convention not by some great platonic idea called cat, a perfect circle
from which all circles are derived. That is what you are basically trying to
do, value some other reality over the reality of words.
MOQ is anti-absolute. You are so caught up in your anti postmodernism
campaign that you drift away from where the MOQ is actually about. We can
debate about the use an the truth of the different <new> philossophies but
it seems to me that you open attacks on these <new> philosophies with
arguments that undermine the MOQ itself. Your pride stands in the way, you
don not want your own build statue Pirsig to be pulled down because it would
be a compromitation of your intellect. THE MOQ does not exist, there are
only MOQ's and one day there will be an MOQ that is better than your MOQ or
Pirsigs' MOQ, that is the course of life, the road never ends but only gets
better or worse.
kind regards, Davor
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Zoeken, voor duidelijke zoekresultaten! http://search.msn.nl
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 Apr 11 2003 - 09:55:45 BST