[Platt] Interesting you should mention the shortcoming of Academia as valuing objectivity more than excellence because the last sentence of the article Arlo and others praised...
[Arlo] When did Arlo "praise" the article. I said it resonated with me on several MOQ points. I recommended it because I thought others interested in the MOQ would find it similarly referential. Did you read it? [Platt] is: "Ethics, no less than science, aims at objectivity." [Arlo] As someone whose sole knowledge of "academia" comes from the same right-wing folk who labeled Pirsig a "radical professor", your continual squaking about this is expected but boring. While you can no more say "every professor" than you can say "every Indian", my ongoing experience in the Academy is that excellence _is_ the goal, and that "objectivity" is a thing of the past. Even within this article, the author acknowledges the cultural foundations of all intellectual knowledge, and posits "objectivism" across a large cultural firmament rather than a stand-alone, acultural position (one of the many MOQ resonance points). But let me ask, do you think the MOQ "aims at objectivity"? Or not? Do you think it is "objective and acultural"? Or "subjective and cultural"? Are the "truths" of the MOQ open to relativistic, cultural, personal scrutiny, or are they "true for all people and for all time"? Isn't the latter "aiming at objectivity"? Why not? 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/
