Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 07:43:36 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD The MOQ makes inroads"

    People!
    Please add the date of your references, many don't read all inputs and
    it's difficult to find the said messages.

    30 Oct. MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT wrote:
     
    > Wim said:
    > Shouldn't the idea that something can be a 'lie' (i.e. be inconsistent
    > with objective reality) be dropped in a MoQ-based culture?
     
    > Platt said:
    > Definitely not. A culture, MOQ-based or otherwise, will fall apart if
    > truth standards are up for grabs. Imagine what life it would like if
    > you couldn't trust you doctor, your electrician, or your plumber.
     
    > Matt:
    > I think Wim has pointed out an interesting observation. The idea of a
    > "lie" as being inconsistent with objective reality should be dropped.
    > That's what is dropped in a culture where truth is not an object of
    > inquiry that you can get wrong. What's funny, is that Platt's answer
    > is the same thing I would say, "a culture ... will fall arpart if
    > truth standards are up for grabs". In a pragmatist culture, be it
    > MoQian or otherwise, truth standards aren't all up for grabs, they are
    > just recognized as having the ability to change, like the change
    > between Ptolemy and Galileo. Galileo wasn't more true, or closer to
    > Truth, he had different standards, standards that we consider better.
    > I see Platt as trying to dress up the practical, everyday stuff that
    > pragmatists would agree to, in the rhetoric of objectivism. I think
    > Wim is right to poke fun at this.

    I don't know if I understand Matt's comment to Wim's (equally
    inscrutable) observation right. "The idea of a lie as being inconsistent
    with objective reality should be dropped"? I don't think any culture
    past or present has been without a truth/false distinction, or can be
    without it .. the "objective/subjective" variety however!!

    The MOQ starts with the Reality=Quality postulate, this is merely a
    claim that things get a better explanation in this light than in the SOM
    one. Then the static levels where one may safely say that the
    false/true issue did not apperar before Society and language. However
    only with the advent of the intellectual level did the subjective/objective
    kind (of false/true) enter existence - as SOM - and this is something
    different.

    Galileo was a showcase of the new intellectual S/O reality asserting
    itself over the social religious-mythological one, he had discovered an
    objective truth that clashed with the religion-inspired cosmology. Now,
    when Matt speaks about this not being more true only better ...etc. he
    has transcended intellect's S/O and see things from the Quality point
    of view (my "rebel intellectual pattern" from where intellect is seen for
    what it is: a mere static level. From this Q-level there is no S/O only
    ever better (higher) static "explanations".

    I guess Matt will refuse any agreement with Pirsig, but I can't see it
    otherwise than his position is MOQ-compatible, the difference with
    Platt is due to NOT distinguishing between the false/true and the
    subjective/objective kind. Platt is of course right, but he need not
    worry, the false/true standard can't be abolished (Joseph Goebbels
    said that lies became truth if repeated, but would certainly be upset if
    this was practized at home) As said, the S/O is intellect's value and
    like the rest of the static levels it can be transcended ..and the
    Quality Idea is something that transcends intellect ...IMO.
       
    I could go on about how Pirsig stresses that Intellect is out of Society
    and thereby NOT the detached objective observer it likes to present
    itself, and how - in this definition - it is very difficult to get these two
    positions reconciled. Only the SOL-interpretation meets both Pirsig's
    out-of-society-claim as well as being a high value level ...but I won't
    harp on that merely say that if this is Matt's alignment of Rorty and
    Pirsig I think he is right .......but I guess I soon will be told otherwise
    :-)

    Sincerely
    Bo

    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 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 07:44:56 GMT