Hi Ian & all Actually I think Nick Maxwell would say that he is challenging standard empiricism, the pure kind suggested by James and taken up by Dewey is also non-standard and has much in common with Maxwell's aim orientated empiricism.
Another interesting philosopher of science is Roy Bhaskar, if you look him up on Wiki or read the interview below you will see he has some interesting things to say about levels, ontology, realism, values and freedom: http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/rbhaskar_rbi.html I think Bhaskar's approach is very plausible, there is no key question he fails to address in his work that I am aware of. But his writing style is very heavy on references to all the other thinkers on similar topics and is consequently far too demanding on even a well read reader. But that said what he has to offer is far more comprehensive than the approach offered by others. Regards David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Forget about Empiricism, no thanks. > Bo, you said ... > [Quote] > It's plain that "Science" is a way of avoiding saying "the > intellectual level". That science is SOM's chief pattern is also > plain, ergo: SOM= Intellect. I know you will insist on SOM/science as > merely one intellectual pattern, but Pirsig says explicitly that > science is what's in conflict with social values, and we know that it > is the intellectial LEVEL that opposes the social LEVEL, thus there > can't be different (from S/O) intellectual patterns .. less intellect > turns into a mental vessel that contains ideas .... as in SOM. > > Why Pirsig didn't admit this obvious thing is a mystery, but I guess > it hinges on his notion of the MOQ as an intellectual pattern, all of > which has brought the MOQ into trouble. > [Unquote] > > Excellent summary IMHO. For me the "problem" of seeing MoQ as an > intellectual pattern, is the apparent circularity. If MoQ is more than > SOM and SOM is Intellect, how can MoQ be an intellectual pattern. But > for me that's easy;- MoQ is an evolutionary form of intellect - one > that requires cycles to evolve to be more than SOM. Closed logic is > dead, circular logic evolves. > > This point BTW is exactly what Friends of Wisdom (Nick Maxwell) is > about - getting "science" to realise that pure (basic) empiricism, > whilst crucial to its methods, is not the whole story of evolving > knowledge (aka wisdom). > > Ian > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
