Hi Carl we just had a typical Platt / Arlo exchange, which I want to
join up with your real / unreal point .... it's about definitions
currupting the thing defined.

> [Platt]
> We know you're the resident champion of PC, even if it kills ...
> [Arlo, okay one more*]
> Certainly NOT.
> Death threats made ... in the name of "political correctness" were "indecent" 
> ...

Ignoring Platt's usual ad-hominem opener,

It just goes to show there is good and bad PC. When using it as a
pejorative epithet - clearly we mean and agree that the bad kind is
bad. So zero value there.

I was ridiculed some years ago for suggesting "PC" was actually the
problem behind people relying on seemingly objective rational
definitions and arguments, when actually discussing political ethics
of people, organizations and their motives. When faced with a tricky
value judgement, people find it politically correct to hind behind the
"pseudo- scientific" objective definitions, when we would be better
served by addressing the politics correctly - in MOQish layers.

You see the hypocrisy here ... where we agree much of the value in
knowledge is beyond defintion (created in mind / intellect), as Platt
recommends to us. Yet how often will we use a definition in arguing
**against** someone else's position. That is the scientistic PC we
should be alarmed about. Be very afraid.

You said Carl,
> "Once we perceive something as having quality, we establish that quality 
> while eliminating anything about it that doens't have it."

Precisely - that particulary quality once perceived is treated
(established / conceived) as a defining - exclusive - boundary, even
though it never was when perceived.

Regards
Ian


On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Broersen"
> <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] British Emergentism
>
>
>> Platt to Andre:
>> What I meant by transconceptual is knowledge beyond definition,
>> beyond words, "undifferentiated without conceptual distinctions." It
>> refers
>> to our meta-sense, a higher form of understanding that recognizes the
>> beauty of the Parthenon and the truth of Godel's Theorem, a tuning fork
>> in the brain than hums when we stumble upon something of
>> exceptionally high quality -- like the MOQ.
>>
>> Andre:
>> Thanks for this Platt. Is this 'knowledge beyond definition'
>> similar/the same as our intuitive 'sense' (of the
>> aesthetic/harmony/beauty/Quality) or for that matter, non-algorithmic
>> understanding?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andre
>
> Hi all.  I've been having a huge problem getting the list, as my provider
> insists on calling it spam and deleting it.  I may have the problem worked
> out, but no guarantees, so if I disappear again, you'll know why.  I did
> want to respond to this though.  I changed the subject, as it seemed
> appropriate.
>
> Specifically:  The Baghavad Gita says that, "The mind is the slayer of the
> real."  While I like the idea of the mind as a tuning fork, I wonder if the
> resonance isn't a result of an arbitrary processing done by the mind?  This
> would also explain the 'knowledge beyond definition' problem, in that since
> our minds are unique, much like snowflakes (in more ways than one) we also
> perceive differently.  Those differences manifest much like the
> superposition of quantum physics, I think.  Once we perceive something as
> having quality, we establish that quality while eliminating anything about
> it that doens't have it.
>
> This feels too obtuse even to me, but it "feels" right.  Comments?
> 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/

Reply via email to