-----Platt Holden, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:23----- 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? -----
I wouldn't be participating on this list if I didn't share sympathy for your view that the MoQ has value. At the same time, while I think it's a better interpretation of reality than many, and numerous MoQ tenets find central places in my personal Weltanschauung, I'm not a dogmatic believer in the MoQ except in its central mystic claim: that any intellectual construction of reality is not the final word on reality and must be subject to Dynamic reassessment based on experience. That applies to the rest of the claims of the MoQ as much as any other metaphysics. My personal interest in philosophy extends beyond the MoQ. As you know from my other posts, I enjoy comparing & contrasting the MoQ with other, sometimes consilient, sometimes incompatible, systems. I also think that the MoQ can be enriched by extending it, especially with concepts in allied fields of complex adaptive systems, systems theory & cybernetics, and evolutionary theory. But to your point, I agree that students should be challenged to conclude that the more consistent, comprehensive, and consilient a worldview, the better. I would love for that sort of critical analysis of the fundamental paradigms of thought to be more widely practiced. -----Platt Holden, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:23----- 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. ------ Thanks. Regrettably, though, not a persuasive one ... I still wish I understood your rationale for opposing gay marriage. Somehow I still don't see even the first slip in the slope that slouches us toward "Gomorrah". That said, I certainly agree there are some aspects of American society that do not bode well for our long-term viability. For example, I think that having a child outside of a committed relationship is, in general, worse than having one within a committed relationship, so high divorce rates worry me to an extent. I say this having been raised almost entirely by my divorced mother whom I adore. But there appears to be empirical evidence regarding the child's academic performance in school and in other success factors that demonstrate a degree of harm to the child from divorce. However, I don't think that staying unhappily married is the best choice in every situation. I wouldn't make divorce illegal just because it's *in general* better for children to be raised in 2-parent families. It's a decision for the people in that situation to make. I also think that lack of respect, physical violence, property destruction, theft, etc. are all problems we face as a society (as have all societies). I just don't see how gay marriage contributes to them. Teen mothers having unwanted children they can't effectively raise? Yes: That's a genuine cause of social instability correlating with higher levels of anti-social behavior in the next generation. Gay couples publicly committing themselves to one another? It's far too 'subtle' of a connection for me to grasp, I'm afraid. -----Platt Holden, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:23----- 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. ----- OK. I think we're in agreement with each other & Pirsig on the ultimate force & necessity of law. I simply reserve use of the term "heavy handed" for specific government interventions that could be handled less intrusively than they are currently implemented. I think that calling all government regulation "heavy handed" is like calling all parental rules "heavy handed" because noncompliance will eventually bring on a paddling, regardless of whether the particular rules the parent lays down are appropriate. I tend to look at specific instances of rule-making to see if the regulation is appropriate for and proportional to the nature of the situation. I am labeling the individual *rule* as "heavy handed". I think you're looking at the *whole structure* of government regulation, and by virtue of its reliance on threat of force, calling it "heavy handed". -----Platt Holden, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:23----- 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. ----- >From what I understand, the DDT/malaria story is more complicated than that. DDT was banned in the U.S. but continues to be legal around the world & is still used, though in places less than mid-century, partly due to fears over its toxicity, partly due to DDT-resistant mosquitoes. Regardless, millions have tragically died due to an upsurge in malaria, which is not only preventable, but highly treatable with pharmaceuticals readily available in the West. Further, your point is well taken: There are unintended consequences to almost every action. However, we cannot let that consideration paralyze us. We must still take action based on the best evidence available to us at the time. -----Platt Holden, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:23----- 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. ----- I can't argue with that. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, too. -----Platt Holden, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:23----- Again, let me express my appreciation for your practice of disagreeing without be disagreeable. ----- Just an example of the positive face of the "tit-for-tat" strategy that Axelrod says got us into mutual cooperation instead of self-centered barbarism, I guess. ;-) While I see that conversations with others who disagree with you turn less than civil, which, as others have commented, regrettably makes MOQ_Discuss a hostile & unpleasant forum at times, I have found you to be agreeable in our debate even though a wide gulf divides us on some issues. Apart from my natural inclinations to the same, that fact makes reciprocating seem natural. Actually, I have found our dialogue personally useful by helping clarify my thoughts on certain issues. I find that people (certainly me) often surround themselves with like-minded friends & acquaintances such that our worldviews get unconsciously reinforced & our biases go unchallenged, which creates a dangerous dynamic of groupthink. I find it valuable having my assumptions challenged to avoid just that unreflective acceptance of a position. Where we disagree, I would love to convince you that my position is superior and would guess that you would like to convince me of the superiority of yours, as well. However, I strive to see my commitment to intellectual values of logic, rules of argumentation, rigor, empirical evidence, etc. overcome both the internal urge to avoid challenges to my worldview through avoidance, denial, & self-delusion that this self-serving desire produces, as well as channel any emotional energy aroused by the disagreement to constructive ends. In any event, I'm not always successful in that struggle against bare egoism, nor are my intellectual capacities of sufficient caliber to address these issues as I would like. However, I remain happy to engage in agreeable disagreement for mutual benefit. Cheers, Keith 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/
