Hi Marsha I agree that science and MOQ are hard to unite but if you take the SOM out of science as Roy Bhaskar has, and the non-realism and anthropocentrism out of Dan and DMBs MOQ it can be done I suggest. To be clear overall I think Pirsig does not fall into the errors that others have. If he has then I part company with Pirsig over non-realism and anthropocentrism. But for me the jury is out, Dan and DMB think Pirsig agrees with them, fair enough at least I am open about whether he does or not. Interested to know where others stand on this.
MOQ non-realist and anthropocentric, for or against? David M MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >Hi David, > >Of course there are problems with a request for such a serious reconciliation, >and it is certainly way beyond my scientific understanding to attempt such an >in-depth discourse, but I might ask: How easily was the Copernican system >_reconciled_ with the old Ptolemaic (earth-centered) model? > >Though I am not being much help, your question is important and I appreciate >your frustration. > > >Marsha > > >On May 1, 2013, at 7:04 AM, David Morey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Arlo >> >> Nonsense, you have no intellectual integrity, if you did you would address >> my points you clearly have no ability to do so, if you were able to you >> would not raise this fantasy SOM windmill, you would respond by saying how >> you see the problem I am raising, and you would then explain how the MOQ can >> address my issue by explaining it as follows... You guys cannot do this, you >> are using the old trick of claiming that if you cover your ears, eyes and >> mouths with special MOQ glasses you can't see the problem or the issue. >> Nothing I can say to that, I do not claim that my way is the only way to >> interpret the MOQ, but sure see a whole heap of problems with an MOQ turned >> into as an anthropocentric non-realist idealism. So how many people here >> agree with Dan,Arlo and DMB, and how many can see the problems I am raising. >> This argument can be read in the book After Finitude in full, as it is the >> same one Speculative Realism raises against all corelationism, and forcing >> it down the plug > ho >> le of history, I'd hate to see the same thing happen to MOQ, you guys are >> falling into a hole that many others have shown, check out After Finitude if >> you want to come up with a less floored position and then come back to me. >> If you find the real messiah let me know, I'm just your very naughty >> nonsense spotting friend trying to help you raise your game. But you are not >> interested it seems. Shame on you! >> >> All the best. >> David M >> >> ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [David] >>> Yes you keep going back to things that have nothing to do with what I am >>> saying, has a robot hacked your account? >>> >>> [Arlo] >>> Dan wondered if you're suffering some sort of meltdown. It seems that way >>> to me too. What you're doing is trying to skirt the valid (and precise) >>> criticisms about your ideas, why they evidence a misunderstanding of Pirsig >>> (by multiple people), and why they are inherently a SOM perspective ("SOM" >>> used in the correct way, by the way), by throwing sand in the bull's eyes >>> (to you the ZMM analogy). After weeks of being shown exactly where you SOM >>> misunderstandings are, you accuse everyone else of being "SOM" (I call this >>> the Great Pee Wee Maneuver, its used quite a bit out of desperation). >>> >>> I can't say I'm surprised, Pirsig's ideas are rather revolutionary and the >>> single biggest mistake I've seen over the years is people trying to dress >>> up their SOM views with MOQ clothing. And while you seemed absolutely >>> intent before about overlaying an SOM (i.e., "patterns have to exist in >>> experience before you then go on to conceptualise them") perspective with >>> Pirsig's terminology, it seems that also has a psychological rabidness to >>> it. >>> >>> Its clear you've hit a "messiah point", where continuing to point out even >>> your most basic misunderstanding will only reinforce your idea that you >>> alone understand Pirsig and everyone else is "SOM" (psychological >>> mirroring). So there is little point in talking, like Dan said. >>> >>> Good luck. >>> >>> 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 >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
