Keith,
[clip]
[Keith]
> I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in both of these quotations,
> and myself have something of a mystical/spiritual interpretation of
> Quality. However, I don't think it's appropriate to teach the MOQ as
> science. The MOQ & Davies are assertions about interpretations of science
> and reality, not about the empirical method and its resultant body of
> knowledge proper. I fully support these concepts being taught in
> philosophy, cultural studies, comparative religion, or intellectual history
> courses.
OK
> -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24-----
> I'll have to think more about that. Offhand I think the MOQ meets the
> criteria of science. It's natural (as opposed to supernatural), logical,
> empirical and economical. And for me at least it qualifies as beautiful.
> One of my gripes about education in general is the categorization and
> separation of subject matter whereby science bears little relation to
> social studies bears little relation to mathematics bears little relation
> to history, etc., etc. There's no attempt to integrate all subjects under a
> "metaphysical" umbrella. But, that's a discussion for another time.
> -----
[Keith]
> Working in the education field (not as a teacher, though) I share your
> concern over somewhat artificial divisions in knowledge taught without an
> interdisciplinary connecting thread. I realize that sounds contradictory to
> what I said about keeping the disciplines distinct in my previous
> paragraph. As you say this is a discussion for another time, as it raises
> large issues worthy of extended discussion. In brief, though, I think that
> the integrity of each discipline must be maintained and their criteria for
> knowledge made explicit. If that's done, then the interdisciplinary
> approach making connections between the disciplines made explicit enriches
> rather than dilutes the curriculum. I agree there should be some
> "metaphysical" umbrella to what's taught in schools. However, I think a
> plurality of approaches should be employed and that the speculative nature
> of some of those metaphysical connections must be a central consideration.
All points well-taken. To me the "diversity umbrella" in which all
approaches are considered equally valid is a cop-out and leaves the
message with young brains full of mush that "anything goes." (Have you
witnessed the overtly sexual teenage dances?) If the MOQ were adopted as
the umbrella, then a value-centered curriculum might evolve, for the
betterment of society. But what are the chances? Practically nil as far as
I can tell. Diversity rules the day.
[clip]
-----
[Keith]
> First, I think that recognizing same-sex unions actually *increases* social
> integrity. By allowing homosexual couples to share medical insurance, have
> recognized communal property, and accrue other economic benefits, as well
> as by decreasing their alienation from the rest of society, same-sex unions
> incentivizes long-term committed relationships, leading to a more stable
> family-unit. I see this as a boon to social cohesion.
I know of nothing inherent in marriage benefits that would encourage gay
partnership into "long-term committed relationships." I would wager the
"divorce rate" among married gay couples would at least equal those of
heterosexual couples. But, neither of us is going to argue the other out
of his position on this issue. The voters will decide.
> Second, while I agree that violence, drugs, having children outside of a
> committed relationship, prostitution, pornography, profane language, lack
> of discipline, lack of respect for the law all undermine social cohesion, I
> don't think it's government's role to legislate away these moral "evils".
> In fact, I believe that both prostitution and (some) drug use should be
> legalized but regulated. While I think engaging in either is a degenerate
> practice, I think more harm than good is done by banning them outright.
> (See the lessons of prohibition here, especially as applied to drugs.)
>
> Government's role should be protecting against demonstrable harm in the
> least intrusive fashion possible. Other social institutions should be in
> the role of keeping us on the straight & narrow path.
Agree.
> -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24-----
> I'm all for blocking "heavy-handed government intervention." Is there any
> other kind? :-) Still, for the sake of social cohesion, I'll stand by my
> stance even though some motivations by the electorate may be less than
> pure. -----
>
> There are definitely other kinds of government intervention. The difference
> between mandating CAFE standards & setting limits on CO2 emissions through
> flexible markets demonstrates one difference. The difference between
> banning alcohol vs. taxing, regulating, & educating against its abuse is
> another.
The intention or motivation behind government intervention doesn't change
the nature of government which is legalized force. Behind all government
regulations, for good or ill, is the barrel of a gun wielded by the police
or military. That's what I meant by any kind of government intervention
being "heavy handed."
> -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24-----
> Care to expand on the last paragraph? What is the "Tragedy of the Commons"
> scenario? Sounds suspiciously like scare-mongering. -----
>
> I'm happy to expand. "The Tragedy of the Commons" is math, not
> scare-mongering. The concept is fairly well explained in the article I
> linked to in a previous message when I first mentioned market
> externalities:
> <http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/073.html>
Thanks. I've reviewed the article and again question its assumption about
man-made global warming. Otherwise I noted at the conclusion that any
combination of carrots and sticks is ultimately backed by the "heavy hand
of government" -- a necessary stick to be sure.
> -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24-----
> Bad choice of a word, "determine." Let me rephrase the question. How does
> intellect discern the Good and describe the Beautiful? -----
[Keith]
> Essential questions at the heart of our dialogue here.
As an aside, some evolutionary biologists are claiming that our moral
sense (what is good) is not intellectual but innate. What do you think?
(Maybe another thread.)
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/
