From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 21:57:30 BST
Hi Platt
You quote:
"As far as I know the MOQ does not trash the SOM. It contains the SOM
> within a larger system. The only thing it trashes is the SOM assertion
> that values are unreal." (note 125.)
Yes we've all read this, MOQ first, SOM in the context of MOQ,
the point is MOQ first, and MOQ sounds alot more like Rorty than you
sound like Pirsig to some of us some of the time, and that's interpretation.
By the way, the lion thing, are you sure? - could always have been a
publicity
stunt. The point of Rorty is to put SOM in a context in the same way as
Pirsig
does. What are objective inorganic levels? Have you read anything about
quantum theory? Objective means everyone has to agree, we can't argue,
values/perspective have been banished to the subject and then ignored and
forgotten. Sure we are going to agree about lots of things we have in common
and we can call those true, otherwise its up for grabs. I mean as the
physicist
Paul Davies has said, the idea of matter increasingly looks like a myth.
What is
objectivity without objects? Are not objects static patterns that we have to
construct?
How can we be certain about our construction of object-ideas? Do you not
have
to have a god-like perspective to be objective? And is science the best form
of
objectivity would you say? Well, great, but it strip down expeience to
quantity
and tries to explain all of experience in those terms, and yes that is
exactly why
Pirsig uses the term quality to reintroduce the full richness of experience
into
our thinking, if MOQ does this, it places SOM in a context, that context
must change
how we look at SOM. Does the context of MOQ alter your understanding of SOM?
If not, do you even need the MOQ? What is the MOQ for do you think?
You may be right, but if so Pirsig is not as interesting as I thought he
was.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the
Nazi, Part III
> David M.,
>
> > Platt says: "Rorty wants to rid society of the idea of objective truth
> > independent > of our wishes and whims, substituting the idea of communal
> > > justification for belief"
>
> David replied:
> > Objective truth is a postulate from SOM,
> > and only makes sense in that context/metaphysics.
> > I thought we wanted to be MOQ advocates.
> > MOQ puts value/quality first. After that it is
> > interpretation all the way down. Doesn't stop you arguing
> > for the greater coherence/range/plausibility of your particular
> > interpretation against others, but you can't ask for any idependent
> > objects to verify what is correct. With a different model, you get a
> > whole different set of objects. It is this fall back towards the
> > essentialism of SOM that makes Matt a useful weapon in keeping the MOQ
> > true to its rejection of SOM, and the implications of doing so.
>
> I beg to differ. The MOQ doesn't reject the SOM. In 'Lila's Child'
> Pirsig writes:
>
> "As far as I know the MOQ does not trash the SOM. It contains the SOM
> within a larger system. The only thing it trashes is the SOM assertion
> that values are unreal." (note 125.)
>
> As for "you can't ask for any independent objects to verify what is
> correct," again I beg to differ. In the MOQ, the inorganic and
> biological levels are "objective."
>
> "In the MOQ all organisms are objective. They exist in the material
> world." (LC, note 4.)
>
> It's objectively true in the MOQ as in SOM that Roy Horn was mauled by
> a tiger while performing at the a Las Vegas casino.
>
> To go along with Rorty's idea that Horn was mauled by a tiger only if
> enough people say so (how many is "enough" is never specified)
> stretches intellectual credulity don't you think?
>
> Regards,
> 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 : Mon Oct 20 2003 - 10:04:51 BST