dmb, (1) DavidM is warning against the rejection of realism BECAUSE you accused him by name (in a thread not actually involving him) of "arguing in favor of subjects experiencing objective reality". Simply clarifying that it's the primacy of subjects and objects we're (ALL) rejecting - NOT reality. We're (ALL) arguing for a MoQish REALITY - and thereby rejecting the dangers of a post-modern, solipsistic, subjective idealism. (Cue David H on consensus and agreement).
(2) Those annotations are fine for what there were (in context as responses to specific statements) but they are not comprehensively definitive in their own right. Annotation 4 hedges its bets with the pragmatic "whenever practical" qualifier. Annotation 67 involves a great deal of short-hand and even admits it contributes to the confusion. Annotation 97 doesn't seem relevant to the current debate - but includes a topic we should return to - namely "social evaluation". Ian On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Morey said to DMB and all: > ... A non-realist MOQ takes on all the problems of idealism, > anthropocentrism and solipsism, and opens the MOQ to all the attacks that > have already removed these views from current thinking. SOM, unlike > realism, has many well known flaws and needs fixing, realism is not a > problem and does not need fixing. Sure SOM uses realism to try to justify > itself, and if you reject realism you undermine SOM, but the reason SOM can > get itself supported is because it is basing itself in something that is > right, realism is right, it makes good sense of our experience. It would be > surprising if something as successful as SOM was not mixed in with ideas > that are right, the real need is to sort out the good from the bad, a more > difficult intellectual task I know, but an important one, one that will > help stop the MOQ go down a path full of new errors or dead ends. > Undermining the substances of SOM is a big and important task on its own, > if DMB thinks this on its own is not a radical task he is > very much undermining the full complexity of what MOQ does, why is he so > attached to just the non-realist element that aligns MOQ so much and so > worryingly with the worst problem of post-modernism? The prison house of > non-realism is not an easy position to argue against, it is perhaps an easy > position to build defences up from within, it is a prison though, and it > has a bad future I suspect, no future that is. Realism is the more open and > fruitful prospect, aligns better with science and evolution, as I think we > can see from DMB's evasions about evolution. ... > > > > > dmb says: > > Okay, I get it. You love realism and you've concluded that lots of bad > things result from the rejection of realism. Without that, you think, there > is no science or evolution and we'd all walk ourselves over the edge of a > cliff. > > But I do not think that, did not say that, and I don't see how that could > follow from anything I said. In fact, I have already provided an > explanation and supporting textual evidence from Lila's child on this topic. > > Look again, David. Your concerns have already been addressed several times > and yet you keep raising them as if the issue wasn't already dead. > > > "The MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as > composed of material substance and independent of us. It says it is an > extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it is practical > to do so. But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific > view of reality is still an idea. If it were not an idea, then that > 'independent scientific material reality' would not be able to change as > new scientific discoveries come in." [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 4] > > "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which > produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced > Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and > produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that > the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, > Annotation 67] > > "It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although > 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually 'common > sense' which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This 'common sense' is > arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various > alternatives. The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality decisions. > The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws > approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that > leads to it." [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 97] > > > Yesterday I was looking for a Pirsig quote and discovered that you were > saying the same thing to me five years ago. Five years! > > Obviously, I cannot help you. > > > 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
