> > [Platt] > > Equally true of philosophers, scientists and political commentators. All > > marshal their arguments to support their premises, as indeed you did in > > your MOQ thesis. > > > > [Krimel] > > Wow, talk about extreme postmodernism. All truth is relative and there > > are no criteria for judging. Curiously in your case this sounds like > > progress. After all you need to get there to get beyond it.
> [Platt] > Postmodernism or Pirsig? "One can then examine intellectual realities the > same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not to find which one is > the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. > There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can > perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in > part, the result of our history and current patterns of values." > > Your got a problem with that? > > [Krimel] > Are you saying that even in aesthetics there are no criteria for > establishing relative value? Aren't you the one touting the superiority of > cave paintings and Mozart? [Platt] What do you say is the criteria for establishing relative value in aesthetics? My criteria is what I see and hear. [Krimel] Which is exactly why I am not interested in aesthetics and do not think that philosophy, science or politics should be judged by purely aesthetic criteria. Rather they are to be judged on a pragmatic basis, according to what works. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
