On 14 May 2009 at 18:06, Andre Broersen wrote: > Platt to Andre: > Expressing one's ideas is "behavior?" I don't think so. Slugging > somebody is behavior. If anything, children should be encouraged to > write and talk about what they think. So should adults. As for the > soundness of ideas, I hope you don't insist, like some academics do, > that there is only one right way to think. > > Andre: > Depending on how one expresse one's ideas can indeed be termed > 'behaviour'...nothing strange about that isn't it? How else am I to > interpret the usage of 'expressing'. Can you 'express' something without > 'behaving' in some way?
If you think talking or writing is "behavior" like slugging somebody, then OK. Fortunately, our U.S. law distinguishes between "speech" and behavior that inflicts physical harm on somebody. I say fortunately because nothing marks a free country more than the right to say what you want without being locked up in jail, or worse. > I was using the example of the child and his/her behaviour to suggest a > difference between the two (i.e. the child and the behaviour). In the same > way one can have a human being 'carrying' a set of ideas. Is there a > difference between the ideas and the person holding them or is the person > these ideas? > I was suggesting that they are different. That is what I meant by not > criticising you but the ideas you 'carry' (and give expression to). OK, I understand. Thanks for the clarification. However, an adult and her ideas are hard to separate. We judge others in many ways, but not the least because of their ideas. > My questions to you were related to this namely: how can you fully support > and agree with the MoQ while at the same time espousing (and giving > expression to) ideas that have evolved out of scientific and subsequent > philosophical insights (eg Newton and Galilei, Descartes, Malebranch, Locke, > Hume, Adam Smith etc ) all of which have been superseded by subsequent > scientific discoveries (relativity, quantum physics etc) through which their > inadequacies, flaws and contradictions came to light and which have > been 'exposed' as such into the development of the MoQ? > > You continue: > > Platt: > I question many of the origins and results of some of the SOM > ideas currently popular among the academic, political and Hollywood > elites here in the U.S. Very low quality patterns IMO. > > Andre: > No tell me Platt: are the SOM ideas YOU HOLD very low quality patterns > ( based on MoQ and Pirsig's insights) or do you mean the current popularity > of 'academic, political and Hollywood elites'? As far as I know all ideas held by me, you and everybody else, whether anarchists, republicans or totalitarians, are SOM-based. Some good, some bad. My original point was that Pirsig suggests an entirely new, non-SOM reason for favoring free markets -- that they are more open to responding to DQ. The fact that others supported free markets using SOM reasoning is totally irrelevant. Anyway, can we agree, Andre, that not all SOM thinking is low quality? Regards, 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/
