Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 16:57:25 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD what is life?"

    "The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is call empiricism. It
    claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by
    thinking about what the senses provide." (Lila, chp 8)

    Platt think about "or by thinking about what the senses provide."
    This is where we go general and abstract and suggest either SOM or MOQ
    as a starting point. What perceptual status could you give the
    concepts of SQ and DQ that are so crucial. Without Scott's universals
    like the concept of a horse how would we ever pick out what a horse was in
    our
    perception. Read Popper, you do concepts you have a handle on perception,
    its good for a while, you get problems, you revisit your concepts and tound
    and dound we go. A big problem is of course how do we get to perceive
    anything
    prior to the concepts given to us by language, I suggest that perception is
    a form of
    language as produced for us by our impressive biological make up or bodies
    as
    Nietzsche would say.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 4:34 PM
    Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

    > Scott, Matt
    >
    > > Scott said:
    > > Thus you miss the point when you give examples that are true by
    > > correspondence. Truth by correspondence only works when the example
    > > consists of sense-perceptible particulars, as is the case in your
    > > examples. But as soon as generalities are involved, truth by
    > > correspondence doesn't work.
    > >
    > > Matt:
    > > I want to thank Scott for this. Many times I get overzealous in my
    > > eschewment of "correspondence". Scott's right when he says "truth by
    > > correspondence only works when the example consists of sense-perceptible
    > > particulars". What the pragmatist balks at is analogizing all truth to
    > > sense perception. We don't know what it means for Truth to be an object
    > > the same as a tiger; we think the analogy very bad.
    >
    > Maybe Scott and Matt balk at "analogizing" (now there's a word for you)
    > all truth to sense perception. But Pirsig has no such hesitation:
    >
    > "The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is call empiricism. It
    > claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by
    > thinking about what the senses provide." (Lila, chp 8)
    >
    > It's should be clear to all by now that Scott and Matt do not agree
    > with one of the key principles of the MOQ.
    >
    > Speaking for myself, I'm not willing to act daily and consistently on
    > the belief that knowledge comes from sources other than sense
    > perception. I'm especially not willing to act on the belief that
    > knowledge must come from some group or other, like from a bunch of ivy-
    > towered postmodernists who claim "... there is nothing to objectivity
    > except intersubjectivity."
    >
    > 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 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 17:01:03 GMT