Keith, > -----Platt Holden, Monday, July 16, 2007 09:54----- > 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. ------ > > Having worked at a boarding high school, I have certainly witnessed those > dances. In fact, I have chaperoned those teenage dances and been an adult > enforcer of appropriate boundaries between hormone-charged teenagers eager > to express biological quality ... > > I share your concern with an "anything goes" mentality and certainly do not > support cultural relativism. That said, I endorse diversity. In the words > of Blaise Pascal, "Plurality which is not reduced to unity is confusion; > unity which does not depend on plurality is tyranny." In endorsing the > teaching a plurality metaphysical approaches, I do not intend to perpetuate > the fatal flaw of postmodern relativism--that nothing is better than > anything else. Rather, I intend to honor the MoQ's assertion that there is > no single True intellectual construction of the world. There are multiple > perspectives, each providing a partial truth, and some are more > comprehensive, consistent, and consilient than others. In the end, what > students need is not a pre-given worldview handed down by authority from > their teachers, but the critical teaching skills honed by engaging with, > articulating, analyzing, attacking, defending, and comparing different > worldviews.
Well said, particularly "some are more comprehensive, consistent and consilient than others." In other words, better. In fact, I wouldn't mind encouraging students to conclude that the more "consilient" a worldview, the better. That's why I consider the MOQ better than other explanations of reality. It's more "consilient" than the rest. What do you think? > -----Platt Holden, Monday, July 16, 2007 09:54----- > 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. ----- > > I fear you are correct that we're not going to budge one another from our > respective opinions on the matter of recognizing same-sex unions. While I > remain open to the possibility of being shown that such a move should be > opposed, I have heard no compelling argument articulating the grounds for > such opposition and maintain a 99% confidence factor that recognizing same > sex unions is not only the morally correct choice in terms of the > universalization of rights, it's also the long-term socially beneficial > choice. > > I know you disagree on that, but I still don't understand why. First, I > haven't heard the reasons why you think that recognizing same-sex unions > leads so social ills. You see it as somehow weakening societal codes but I > don't see the connection between allowing gay marriage & any increase in > uncivilized or anti-social behavior. What, specifically do you see > happening, and how? What's gone wrong in Vermont in the last seven years > since they've recognized civil unions between homosexual couples? As a indicated before, the rationale for my position is more subtle than a direct correlation between gay marriage and anti-social behavior which, in the case of Vermont, has hardly had enough time to be definitive one way or another. What concerns me is that breaking another societal value pattern in addition to those already broken over the past 100 years resulting in what Judge Robert Bork called "slouching towards Gomorrah." But of course, I could be wrong. Logically you make a strong case. > Second, I find reasonable the logic laid out in the article I cited in my > last post which argues that allowing gay marriage actually strengthens > marriage as an institution. > <http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26888.html>. Whether or not it would > actually increase long-term committed relationships between gays is an open > question, as I have no evidence to point to one way or the other. Prima > facia, though, I think that both the formal community recognition and the > contractual nature of marriage would tend to incentivize such, since that's > a prime social function of marriages. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. > -----Platt Holden, Monday, July 16, 2007 09:54----- > 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." ----- > > I think you take Pirsig too literally. > > In Chapter 24 of *Lila*, he does indeed say, "All the laws of history, all > the arguments, all the Constitutions and the Bills of Rights and > Declarations of Independence are nothing more than instructions to the > military and police." Personally, I take issue with the "nothing more than" > clause, as I think there is an enormous difference to liberty in the > content of laws and the intermediary steps of enforcement. His essential > point is the next sentence: "If the military and police can't or don't > follow these instructions properly they might as well have never been > written." That's certainly true. If compliance doesn't come from the mere > statement of the law, then it must come to threat of or actual use of > violence against individuals breaking the law. However, government > intervention doesn't *start* there--it *ends* there, and only when the law > has been broken and the perpetrator refuses to comply peaceably. Yes, exactly my point. > To equate > all government intervention with police action is to mistake the DMV for > the SWAT team, to equate a government bureaucrat carrying out a statutory > regulation with a machine-gun wielding soldier-cop in a flak jacket > carrying out a warrant. As my examples bear out, there's big difference > between levels of government regulation, between criminalizing the > consumption of alcohol and criminalizing acts of negligence under the > influence of alcohol, between micromanaging manufacturing standards and > setting pervasive economic incentives & letting individuals & businesses > take care of the rest. I think that just as some government intervention > unwarranted and some not, some government intervention is heavy-handed, and > some is not. If you are pulled over by a state trooper for violation of a DMV law, you will notice he's wearing a gun. If you go into court for violating a liquor license or failure to abide by OSHA regulations, you will see the court officers wearing guns. Where government intervention "ends" is what gives it its power, not its beneficent intentions. That's why I call it "heavy handed." The anecdotal application of government's power in specific situations doesn't change it's basic nature. Keeping that power under control is what constitutions are for. But, don't get me wrong. The "heavy hand" is necessary. Otherwise, back to the law of the jungle. > -----Platt Holden, Monday, July 16, 2007 09:54----- > 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. ----- > > Regardless of the reality of anthropogenic global warming and its likely > deleterious consequences I hope you agree that the economics of > externalities, the applicability of the cybernetic logic of the Tragedy of > the Commons, and the game-theoretic mathematics of Prisoner's Dilemma still > hold true. In the situations in which these constructs apply, individual > short-term self-interest leads to long-term ruin. It requires external > (most likely government) regulation to avoids the Tragedy of the Commons > because a free market cannot incentivize the nondestructive individual > behavior. In some few cases, yes. But again let's be aware of unintended consequences of government interference. DDT was banned to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons. As a result, millions in third world countries have died from highly preventable malaria. > On this issue, I'm curious what would constitute evidence to persuade you > of the reality and danger of global warming. From your commitment to the > MoQ and your statements allying it with science, I would have assumed that > you were committed to scientific standards of evidence, the overwhelming > preponderance of which supports the view that anthropogenic global warming > threatens us with enormous loss of property, livelihood, and human life, as > summarized by the IPCC and reported in the links I provided in my July 9th > post. What makes you question these multiple, peer-reviewed, scientific > papers? Do you see compelling evidence to the contrary? As I'm sure you know, a majority of scientists saying something is true doesn't make it true. Science is not a majority vote venture. Not so long ago the majority of scientists believed light traveled through ether. Also as I'm sure you know there is a considerable body of scientists who disagree that global warming is man-made. For a compelling (to me) sampling, see: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e- bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 > -----Platt Holden, Monday, July 16, 2007 09:54----- > 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.) ----- > > An interesting question for future exploration. I assume you're talking > about Steven Pinker & E.O. Wilson, among others? I haven't read enough of > their work to comment, but from what I have read, I think at least some of > our moral sense is pre-programmed by evolution, whether at the biological > or sociocultural level. I highly recommend Robert Axelrod's *The Evolution > of Cooperation* and Robert Wright's *Nonzero* for compelling, > game-theoretic, evolutionary explanations of how we came to cooperate and > develop our sense of the good over time out of our own self-interested > interactions with others. The "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" cooperation seems to be practiced by at least the higher primates. So in that respect at least, morality may be innate. When it comes to "live and let live" or "love thy neighbor as yourself," the innate theory becomes questionable. As you say, some morality is probably pre-programmed by evolution, but not all. Again, let me express my appreciation for your practice of disagreeing without be disagreeable. 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/
