Matt and Mark, I did apologize for the wrong use of name.
Marsha On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:04 AM, 118 wrote: > Hi Matt (or is it Mark?), > > Marshal likes to interact by throwing some chum in the water and feel the > fishies nibble on his toes. Sometimes it is fun to banter, but don't expect > too much from him. > > Mark > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Hello Margie, >> >>> Hello Mark, >>> >>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: >>>> >>>> Matt said: >>>> I'm wondering what it even means for science to reject, say, >>>> biological values. >>>> >>>> Marsha said: >>>> Science might reject the physical responses accompanying jealousy, >>>> fear or hate from biasing the interpretation or presentation of data. >>>> >>>> Matt also said: >>>> When did biology reject sex? >>>> >>>> Marsha also said: >>>> Biology includes the study of sex. >>>> >>>> Matt: >>>> The first response construes Pirsig in a useful way, but the second >>>> walks into why the formulation is odd: science _studies_ stuff, but to >>>> say it _includes_ it without the "study of" bit is to think that biology >>>> includes having scientists having a lot of sex with each other ("in the >>>> name of science," they keep telling their spouses). The answer to >>>> the rhetorical question doesn't rebut the premise in the right way in >>>> order to clarify the issue. Science rejects jealousy and fear as >>>> appropriate responses in the "study of" bit, but in the same way the >>>> answer to the second question could've been "biology includes the >>>> study of fear." Biology doesn't reject sex, and it doesn't reject fear, >>>> in toto: rather it rejects fear and sex in terms of their relevance to >>>> the "study of" stuff. Which is why I find the Pirsig formulation a >>>> little lop-sided. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Since there is no absolute by which to reckon whether RMP's >>> formulation is a little lop-sided or your head is a little lop-sided, >>> I'd have wonder what are you trying to grasp? Do you know? >>> >>> Marsha >> >> Why on earth do we need an absolute to be able to make value >> judgements? Did I not relativize the judgement properly enough to >> my self and its perspective? Oh, I see that I did. >> >> What on earth are you looking for, Margie? >> >> Matt >> >> ___ 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
