Re: MD MOQ psycology (?)

From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Sun Aug 08 2004 - 23:45:32 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD The Social Construction of Reality"

    Hello everybody,

    Would Heidegger's "Being and Time" be of any help here? If your
    talking about "just about everything in life, the universe and
    everything, " well that sounds to me a lot like ontology.

    Heidegger asks, "what does everything have in common?"

    His answer is "Being." "Being," therefore, must be the most universal
    of concepts. While everyone has an innate, a priori knowledge of
    being, a working definition remains elusive our understanding, vague
    and difficult to describe.

    Because being is permanent flux? Hyper Dynamic? Of highest Quality?

    Best regards,

    C.

    On Aug 8, 2004, at 2:01 PM, David Morey wrote:

    > Hi DMB
    >
    > Ever read Marcuse's One Dimensional Man? -
    > good discussion in it on the political conformity
    > of science. Quality has more to offer
    > then instrumentalism.
    >
    > regards
    > David M
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 8:46 PM
    > Subject: RE: MD MOQ psycology (?)
    >
    >
    >> Ilya and Ian:
    >>
    >> Ian Glendinning said:
    >> My catch-all term for describing just about everything
    >> in life, the universe and everything, MoQ included,
    >> is "Evolutionary Psychology".
    >>
    >> dmb says:
    >> This reminds me of an author that Ilya might want to investation, the
    >> evolutionary psychologist Ken Wilber. I don't think its exactly right
    >> to
    > say
    >> his work is based on the MOQ's assumptions, but his work and Pirsig's
    >> are
    >> both based on the same assumtions.
    >>
    >> Ian said:
    >> The word "scientific" fills me with dread in the proposal here.
    >> Does everything still need to be "scientific" (ie politically correct)
    >> to be taken seriously these days ?
    >>
    >> dmb says:
    >> Huh? How do you figure? What is dreadful about the word "scientific"?
    >> How
    > do
    >> you figure the word has anything to do with being politically
    >> correct? I'm
    >> sorry Ian, but this doesn't make any sense.
    >>
    >> On second thought, never mind. Don't bother trying to explain.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> dmb
    >>
    >>
    >> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    >> Mail Archives:
    >> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    >> Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    >> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >>
    >> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    >> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 09 2004 - 01:57:32 BST