Hi Horse, I agree. The dynamic portion of knowledge is in preventing dogma from hindering its progression. It is good to recognize dogma for what it is, and use it for its value. The use of such dogma is to arrive beyond it. The static levels of intellectual progress are somewhat bewitching and often difficult to surpass. They lend a sense of security and thus complacency. Such attributes are not necessarily bad in themselves, but they are susceptible to authoritarian manipulation which can be harmful.
Data itself is open to dogmatic interpretation. Certain paradigms can be fully supported with data that is viewed in a static way. Often the breaking of this spell requires an outcast such as Phaedrus to provide the seed for advancement. The danger is of course the stagnation of a new dogma. I do not think MOQ is there yet, however I do note a tenacity to stick with assumptions that perhaps can be interpreted in alternate ways. Such alternate interpretation can often lead to further understanding, they can also mislead. They should never be dismissed out of hand without some thought, however. Assumptions are necessary due to the nature of knowledge. Questioning these assumptions in terms of value is also appropriate. Such questioning can also lead to a disarray or stagnation of the inception of a new idea. It is a tough balance between questioning everything and questioning the right thing. By the way, I live a stone's throw from where Zappa's Camarillo Brillo is from. Zappa was one of my music heroes from the '70s just because he challenged and was blasphemous about everything. He was indeed a musical genius. She had that Camarillo brillo Flamin out along her head I mean her mendocino bean-o By where some bugs had made it red Cheers, Mark On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark > > As with any area of knowledge starting somewhere is essential. However, > assuming that this starting point is unassailable and irrefutable is, as I > think you point out, the origins of dogma. > Questioning the origins of knowledge is best done by reasoning and not just > replacement by a new dogma. Then there's good reasoning and poor reasoning. > Ignoring data or experience which refutes a wanted conclusion is a species > of the latter. Only when considering all relevant data/experience can > reasoning be qualified as good reasoning and even then it is reason that > decides what is relevant and what is not. > As far as I'm concerned any process or area of knowledge that fails to > question it's underlying assumptions is dogma. If it's wrong throw it out > and start over or modify the original assumptions. > > > Horse > > > > > 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 > 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
