Steve said to dmb:
Harris doesn't think that he is hamstrung in making the case he wants to make.
His next TED talk could not possibly be enhanced by including such phrases as
"the evolution of static patterns toward dynamic Quality." Am I wrong?
dmb says:
Well, your point is not wrong so much as it is ridiculous. Are we really going
to take the term "vocabulary" so literally? Do you honestly think the purpose
of explaining the MOQ to Sam would be forcing him to adopt the terms "static"
and "Dynamic"?
C'mon, Steve. Explaining Pirsig's argument against value-free science would be
a matter of giving Sam some conceptual tools, not just new terms. What if he
could open his next TED talk by saying there is a rational, humanistic,
evolutionary basis on which to make claims about human values and human
flourishing? MOST intellectuals view facts and values as separate. Most
educated Americans think that nothing scientific can be said about morals. The
audience at those TED talks, for example. I think we ought not underestimate
their capacity to take ideas seriously. On the other hand, the levels of static
quality could easily be described in ordinary terms that require no
explanation. The biological, social and intellectual levels of quality are just
things like health, wealth and truth. These basic hierarchies have already been
well established in developmental psychology.
I guess it doesn't matter. Obviously, you're not interested.
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
