From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 12:47:20 GMT
Paul:
I disagree, and this is my point - my report is not objective but it is
intellectual. Your definition of intellect is too restrictive, at both a
philosophical level and an everyday level.
DM: Paul, I'm working on a report about the quality
of management systems for a UK company too.
Its scope is entirely determined by what is trying to be
achieved. We are creating a model in which we can ensure that
what the project outputs is what we want them to be.
Anyway I would agree with the above. Your example is a good one.
However, I think Pirsig is really concerned about ontology
and the way it underlies the sciences both physical and human
e.g. anthropology, when he pushes back to the origins of the SO divide.
It is the SO dominance within those aspects of intellect/science that
are his main target. This is of great importance to our culture as a whole.
I agree that Bo is going too far with his equation intellect=SO divide, but
its dominance and influecnce is great and even fundamental as Pirsig
demonstartes by talking about the self-imposed ontological limitations
of anthropology. Would you agree?
regards
David M
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ
> Bo
>
> The rest of the responses to your last post.
>
> Bo said:
> We agree that Plato was the the proto-SOMist and that his "truth"
> compares to "the objective", but then you seem to say that there are
> many truths ...many axioms and brought this passage from ZMM
>
> Paul:
> Yes, to show that Plato's conception of truth i.e. it is there to be
> recollected/discovered, was ill-founded. Poincaré showed that the
> starting axioms of geometry are based on an aesthetic preselection to
> form practical definitions - a kind of rhetoric, really.
>
>
> > "Poincaré concluded that the axioms of geometry are conventions, our
> > choice among all possible conventions is guided by experimental facts,
> but
> > it remains free and is limited only by the necessity of avoiding all
> > contradiction. Thus it is that the postulates can remain rigorously
> true
> > even though the experimental laws that have determined their adoption
> are
> > only approximative. The axioms of geometry, in other words, are merely
> > disguised definitions." [ZMM p.270]
>
> Bo said:
> But there is no disagreement at all. My point is that the new S/O
> reality that emerged with the Greeks by and by resulted in science and
> technology and modernity as we know it.
>
> Paul:
> More or less.
>
> Bo said:
> The fact that geometrical axioms and scientific truths have been shown
> to be provisional or conventions (in MOQish: from the social level)...
>
> Paul:
> Scientific truths are intellectual patterns, just not objective.
>
> Bo said:
> ...does not diminish the enormous static good that the S/O represents.
>
> Paul:
> Agreed, the belief in an external independent reality is one of the
> highest quality intellectual patterns - one of the best truths - there
> is.
>
> Paul previously said:
> > P.S. As an aside, I'm currently writing a report on Information
> Quality
> > for a company in the UK, nowhere does a sharp subject/object
> distinction
> > or the search for immortal principles come into the writing of the
> report
> > yet it is clearly not just a social activity. A manipulation of
> abstract
> > symbols to convey (hopefully) coherent ideas describes what I'm doing
> > perfectly. What level would BoMOQ put my report writing in?
>
> Bo said:
> In intellect naturally. You are striving to be impartial, to say
> something that is objectively true
>
> Paul:
> No, I'm not. I'm constructing a conceptual framework that may help a
> company understand something new about their business. The terms I'm
> defining don't point to anything existing objectively before I defined
> the terms. It is a perception of their business that I'm presenting
> them, and that is understood by the company. The "truth" of what I say
> is determined by the clarity and coherence of my ideas and their
> practical applicability - in other words, by its value.
>
> Bo said:
> Intellect [Paul: by which you mean S/O] is so cemented in the Western
> world that nobody in her/his right mind can base "reports" - or anything
> else - on anything else than the above said objectivity
>
> Paul:
> I disagree, and this is my point - my report is not objective but it is
> intellectual. Your definition of intellect is too restrictive, at both a
> philosophical level and an everyday level.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Feb 08 2004 - 12:50:58 GMT