> [SA previously]
> > > Where does Pirsig say SOM is locked into
> science, that science > can't have a different
> mindset, a different approach?
>
> [Platt quotes Lila]
> > "Phaedrus thought that of the two loads of students,
> > those who study only
> > subject-object science and those who study only
> > meditative mysticism, it would be
> > the mystic students who would get off the stove
> > first." (Lila, 9)
>
> EXACTLY!!!!! Pirsig says here, "...those who
> study only subject-object science..."
> "...subject-object science..." "...subject-object..."
> Pirsig here is using subject-object as an adjective
> describing a kind of science. Science with a MOQ
> approach would clarify and understand what science
> finds much better than a SOM science.
How would an MOQ science differ from SOM science? Would an MOQ
science say evolution from viruses to man occurred because it was
good that it did? I doubt many scientists would go along with that idea.
> [Platt]
> > The social sciences are hardly science in the sense
> > of being logical positivists like physicists,
> chemists and biologists.
>
> Yes, and logical positivists, guess what Platt,
> are philosophers describing what they see, with
> thought as to what science is doing. Science does,
> and these logical positivists are philosophers trying
> to say what science does. MOQ philosophers would say
> what science does, better.
No doubt MOQ is a better philosophy than logical positivism.
> [Platt]
> > Nowhere have I found that SOM lacks thought.
>
> No, but SOM says thought is here, and objects over
> there. Ham's thesis is SOM. Thoughts and objects in
> SOM corrupt each other, and have nothing to do with
> each other. They are separated, and always to be
> pushed away into two different worlds. This is why
> SOM science rejects thought and values. SOM science
> rejects the S part, and only finds the O part to be of
> value and to be truthful. MOQ finds S and O valuable.
Agree.
> > > [Platt]
> > > > Inorganic vs. biological levels.
>
> [SA previously]
> > > Inorganic vs. biological levels, ok, your
> > > avoiding my questions. Where does the MOQ mention
> > > death vs. life?
>
> [Platt quotes Lila and then comments]
> > "Biology beat death billions of years ago." (Lila,
> > 21) I wonder why it's necessary for me to do your
> research for you.
>
> Oh... so the body lives forever now. I thought
> you said the body dies and the spirit lives forever.
Individual bodies die, but life goes on. Surely you see the difference.
You will die while hopefully your children and grandchildren survive, and
so forth..
> > [Platt]
> > I know what exclusive means, but I don't know how
> that differs from > perspectives. A perspective can
> be exclusive, e.g. a black and white > perspective
> about the war against terrorism in Iraq.
>
> Yes, I agree perspectives can be, '...e.g. a black
> and white perspective, etc..." Yet, perspective also
> includes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder",
> exclusive is locked into 'black or white no gray'.
[SA previously]
> > SOM has a much longer history than just science.
>
> > > SOM thought up science. It is now found to be too
> > > rigid of a philosophy to explain what what many
> > have been sweeping under the rug. The MOQ enhances
> SOM
> > > with a more encompassing perspective. Don't be
> > rigid about science. It has been the philosophy
> called
> > SOM that has been leading science. The MOQ can help
> > > science understand more of the data science has
> found.
>
> [Platt]
> > Yes. Point well taken.
>
> Ok, then we agree up above further, too, I guess.
>
> > [SA quoted Lila]
> > > "...ultimate Quality isn't... definable..."
> > What is Quality? That can be answered staticly, but
> > don't forget about dynamic quality which leaves the
> > question still ultimately unanswered/undefined.
>
> > > > > [Platt]
> DQ can't be static, but a description of it can.
> There's a difference
> between the egg you can eat and the egg on a menu.
>
> Right, dq is not intellectual, thus, dq is not
> definable and can't be explained intellectually, so,
> us typing what dq is - is not dq. I agree with you
> here. We can finger point at the moon all day and
> night, and still not choke the full-meaning out of dq.
> Dq stays innocent.
Have a nice day.
Platt
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/
