> -----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.
Well said. I agree. > 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. Agree, especially evolutionary theory since Pirsig's theory is "what's evolving is static patterns of value," > 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. Boy, so would I. > -----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". Ok. It's a controversial subject to be sure. > 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. But there is a "burden on society" that happens when children are negatively affected by divorce don't you think? An interesting moral issue arises involving the question of when society should step in when a burden is placed upon it. This certainly is an issue associated with illegal immigration. > 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. OK. Point taken. > -----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". Yes. > -----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. No argument. But, caution is sometimes thrown to the wind in the heat of political passion. > -----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. ;-) Makes sense to me. Ever since I learned about the tit-for-tat strategy I've tried to follow it in dealings with everybody except my wife who I've learned that "Yes, dear" is always the best strategy. :-) > 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. Me, too. Other than admiring your tone in our dialogue and the depth of your intellect, I also enjoy the quality of your writing. It is indeed of the highest caliber -- clear, concise and free of cant. Best regards, 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/
