From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 20:10:37 GMT
Matt
Matt said:
What are these ontological claims you think the MoQ can make but
pragmatists can't? As far as I could tell, the way we had left it
earlier was that the only difference between the MoQ and pragmatism was
a jargon difference, which, upon hearing you say, "In this sense, the
MOQ is a departure from pragmatism," makes me shrug and go, "Semantics.
In this sense, the MoQ is a departure from pragmatism in the same sense
that you and I part company on whether to write "MOQ" or "MoQ." That's
no difference that makes a difference." If this _is_ our difference,
then if you say the MoQ makes ontological claims, then, in your
terminology, that means pragmatism makes ontological claims and there's
still no philosophical difference between the two.
Paul:
Fair enough, given the agreement on the use of "ontology," I think
you're probably right. I've just never seen a pragmatist create anything
like Pirsig's static hierarchy but then I don't claim to have read a
great deal of pragmatist philosophy.
On the subject of differences, I think one difference between the MOQ
and neo-pragmatism may be that the MOQ still makes use of "empirical
experience" as a starting point and as the basis for the existence of
value. Is this a problematic aspect of the MOQ for pragmatists?
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 20:34:16 GMT