Matt asserted: > For the MoQ to cause a paradigm shift, it has to > > a) explain phenomena better than standard existing viewpoints > b) be accepted by society (in this case philosophical society) as such > c) not be fiction > > I added C, and while C isn't necessary, it's a prevalent trend in notable > philosophical progress. > > Other than that, the MoQ seems to fail in respect A, fails utterly in > respect B, and fails in respect C.
Where Matt got his criteria for defining a paradigm shift is a mystery, but for the sake of argument, let's go along with it. a) Pirsig cites a number of "platypi" in Lila that the MOQ explains much better than the standard SOM viewpoint. Examples are familiar to anyone who has read Lila. b) Acceptance of the basic tenants of the MOQ by "philosophical society" is already wide and deep in the Orient. Matt's assertion appears to limit itself to western philosophy which Whitehead aptly described as "all footnotes to Plato." So the west needs more time to come around. But it's getting there with Dr. McWatt and the MD leading the way. c) Since there has been little "philosophical progress" in the past 2000 years, the criteria of "not fiction" seems irrelevant. Anyway as Jacob Bronoski pointed out, all theories, including scientific ones, are fiction: "Science, like art, is not a copy of nature but a re-creation." Finally, the word "paradigm" has a number of different meanings according to Wikipedia. I use the broad definition -- "a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." That the MOQ is a new "framework" should be evident. Platt 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/
