Platt, John, Andre, All. 14 June
Platt had said > > > The relevance of the MOQ is clear. Science has a defect. "The defect > > > is that subject-object science has no provision for morals. There are kind of morals in SOM, but they just exist in our subjective minds and - moreover - belong to religion which was/is science's enemy, and as science has come to undermine religion's morals in the form of social order deteriorated. That was the situation before the MOQ. Platt is right here. Andre: > > And you are according it the highest (intellect)ual status...and > > defend it to the tooth! The proverbial in-out metaphysical turn that made SOM into the static intellectual level also robbed it of the authority to make morals "subjective", on the contrary its subject/object distinction became a moral subset. So it's possible to defend intellect and attack SOM. John > That's exactly what they're doing. But you have to admit, science IS > the highest (intellectual) status in MoQ terms. They're just > following what is correct. Hmm, sounds good but a bit cryptic. > Too bad that what is correct, is wrong. "Intellect" is a faulty label > for the creative symbolic manipulations which guide social patterns. > The connotations (!) of intellect in our society exclude Art, which > Pirsig himself accords the higher archy. Creative symbol manipulation can hardly undermine social value.It's the "objective attitude that deem social morals subjective that did that. > And Science devoid of Art is Not the highest human "knowing" and there > is nothing more to say to any who thinks otherwise. By what art OR > science can the scientifically- oriented, be made to realize the value > of art? An ongoing question, but only for those who are brain-pliable > enough to keep asking. And as Matt so eloquently pointed out, there is > resistance to accepting any other's viewpoints on a forum dedicated to > arguing, and certainly enough ambiguity and misunderstanding in the > language we use, that none need ever "lose" by admitting another's > viewpoint. We discuss the MOQ and there must be a best way of understanding it and that is the one free of SOM's influence and Matt's "eloquence" is SOM to the hilt Andre: > > [ speaking from a SOM prison]... (as condemned by you and > > Bodvar). John: > It is true also, that we all dwell in a SOM prison. I guess some guy > living in a hut on a mountain can escape the dominant paradigm, but > since we all have internet access, I make assumptions about the common > worlds in which we dwell. And "A SOM Prison" sounds like a pretty > accurate description to me. OK, but once the SOM-MOQ transformation has taken place, internet, car, wife, house job ...etc. are no "bricks in the SOM prison". > John the agreeable (even tho he just got fired today) Hope Lu can support you for a while. Bodvar 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/md/archives.html
