Ham to Andre: Interesting that you include Calvin, the author of predestination, as a popular philosopher. Also, what makes a philosophy "outmoded"? Since a philosophy can't be proven wrong, doesn't this really mean pass?, as in "old-fashioned"?
Andre: Metaphysics is a theoretical exposition of Man and its relation to Nature. When philosophising about this, one makes certain assumptions about the nature of man and the nature of reality. Philosophical frameworks have gone hand in hand with science, using its (science) findings to inform one's theory. The reason why part of Aristotle's theories are 'outmoded' is because the scientific foundations upon which his ideas were based have been proven to be wrong.(by Newton e.g.) Locke's theory (f.ex) is based on the findings of Newton's and Galilei's scientific discoveries. (Locke was a close friend of Newton). These discoveries have been found to be quite wrong/flawed in some parts (due to Einstein et.al) to the extent that they cannot be counted on to adequately describe Man, or the nature of Man or 'Reality'. Yet, the vast majority of the e.g.socio/political/economic sciences are derived from Locke et.al. (The American Declaration of Independence IS Locke's ideas) ...flawed, inaccurate..contradictory etc, etc. As far as I am aware, the Moq is the one theoretical framework wherein all divergent ideas are brought together, some ideas modified through the MoQ to harmonise better without compromising them, and some ideas contradicting eachother BUT within the evolutionary framework of Quality as being identified as Reality making sense. Ham: Interesting that you include Calvin, Andre: Don't talk to me about Calvin. His spirit still dominates the political scene. That is why I have difficulty with Bodvar generalising that Western Countries are 'intellect dominated'. Speaking for Holland...it is not...major themes and (more importantly) major political decisions are turned into piss-weak, erzats compromises due to the christian ideology of the largest party dominating it. (I thought you had a similar problem in America with the last president you gave birth to before the current one). Ham: Whoa! -- "scientific investigations" like the MoQ? Let's not confuse philosophical theory with Science. Pirsig is not a scientist by any criteria you can name. Just because someone calls his ontology "radical empiricism" doesn't qualify it as a science. Andre: See my ideas above Ham. I really wish you would read ZMM and Lila. Now, and further on in your post you once again turn into an apologist for free enterprise/ individualism etc etc without adequately considering the risks involved in such a system. You really should know by now. But some never learn, unprepared to allow other ideas to permeate. Ham: I don't see "intellect" (or the lack of it) as the source of the problem. Rather, it's the Marxist ideology that the freedom to prosper by one's talents and perseverance and keep what he earns is immoral. Andre: I asked you some time ago where you were a hunderd years ago. Given this short-sighted knee-jerk reaction and blaming everything on the Marxists again I would say: still in the same place you were fifty years ago....don't you ever move around? You know, find out new things, new experiences? Ham: ...unless we recognize the uniqueness of each individual, particularly with respect to value sensibility, Andre: All is differentiated quality...including you and I. Variations on a Quality theme. Where not one blade of grass is similar to another but in unison capable of creating the most wonderful coverings. 'We' variations of and on the same theme, like individual notes in a symphony. We all have our individual quality but this disappears into oblivion to the joining of all these qualities together. Science bears this out, at the very earliest beginnings. Ham: Difference is the fundamental ground of existence. Andre: Change this into VARIATION on a theme: the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum into the differentiated. Ham: "Vive la difference!" Andre: Yeah, the French have always been a sceptical, suspicious, not really very trustworthy, self-inflated lot! Andre 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/
