Greetings,
Glove. As a professional jazz musician (until last year) I can assure you that perfect
pitch can be
learned. I don't possess it but I know people who do and in two cases I know how they
learned it. I
can't be arsed to do so myself as I don't see one advantage over relative pitch, but
that is beside
the point. I don't think this is related to our the current discussion of what is
good, but if you
think it is then please do tell me why.
">So when you ask "Can we ascertain what is good from empirical evidence?" I
>would rather put it that we acertain empirical evidence from what is good
>intellectually and turn it into unambiguous social level agreements which
>has no regard to the "absolute" value contained therein, yet it must be
>there implicitly."
Forgive me, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Care to explain?
">Basically your question seems to boil down to "what is quality?" I am not
>sure anyone has an answer to that question, for even by looking deeply into
>the interaction between the social and intellect levels, we are still unable
>to say with certainty what Dynamic force of value dictates in any given
>situation."
Is this more non-naturalistic situation ethics? If it is then my questions to Magnus
apply to you
also.
">Therefore I would say that the MOQ states that all schools of
>thought are correct on this very difficult question."
Presumably you would exclude the school of thought that regards the MoQ's take on
quality as
bollocks? Care to be a tad more precise? If the MoQ is all things to all men then it
becomes nothing
to anyone and I can't imagine that you accept that for one minute.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
