Hey Marsha, Just having fun. Hard to take this stuff seriously. Peace
Mark On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:35 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 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
