AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST! LET ME MAKE IT PLAIN AND CLEAR:
YOU ARE A FOOL, HORSE!
FROM,
LITHIEN
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/pixiedust.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Horse <horse@wasted.demon.nl>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 9:30 PM
Subject: RE: MD An Holistic Approach to the MoQ
Hi Struan, Roger and All
On 11 Jan 99, at 18:49, Struan Hellier wrote:
<SNIP>
> I have affirmed these in a precise and methodical way and now put it to the
> squad that the only people who can possibly object fall into one of the following > categories:
>
> 1) Naive mystics with no appreciation of rational debate as a useful tool for
> seeking the 'good'
> 2) Naive materialists with a simplistic notion of what constitutes 'material.'
> 3) Those who lack understanding of my position or refuse to contemplate it.
> 4) Those with a poor understanding of the possibilities of the MoQ.
>
> Furthermore, I put it to the squad that anyone who falls into one of these
> categories (with the exception of the third which could simply be a result of
> them disliking my rhetoric to which I naturally have no objection - after all, why > should you listen to me?) rejects the very thing that
> makes the MoQ unique and valuable and I have no interest in continuing to
> debate with them on these issues.
Hopefully I don't fall into any of the above catagories and would like to continue the debate - even though I haven't contributed so far!
The main stumbling block in the discussion so far seems to have been over the definition of Materialism and all it entails. This I think is justified in as much as materialism is usually associated with "Scientific Materialism" and not Philosophical Materialism. The former being generally associated with the Logical Positivists - which seems to be Pirsigs starting point in an attack against what he refers to as SOM. Philosophical Materialism seems to be of a different kind and the paper that Mary pointed to:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html
seems to be a good place to start.
> To my mind the MoQ
> should not be oppositional, (although Pirsig and his acolytes present it as such
> too often and some on this forum thrive on being bloody minded), it is a
> potentially exciting and valuable contribution to philosophy and the philosophy
> of science, which is holistic in nature and which seeks to unify
> seemingly disparate disciplines in a coherent way.
It may also be a means of entry into the mainstream of Philosphical thought and ideas IF it can be shown that Philosophical Materialism is compatible with MOQ. This would also be in line with the general aims of the MOQ Site objectives. I think it is well worth a stab anyway.
On 11 Jan 99, at 19:38, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> I think we need to clarify current science and the MOQ. The two of you seem
> to have more restrictive interpretations than Struan and I on both.
Include me in there. I'm getting fed up with constant attempts to reduce the MOQ to 'Mysticism'. As I see it, the MOQ is an attempt to unite Science, Mysticism, Art etc. under the Quality banner.
> Quantum physics and relativity theory explain reality in terms of value and
> relationships and deny the existence of independent things. Complexity
> theory explains reality in terms of dynamics, freedom, attractors (patterns
> of value), and emergent levels. Science is quickly evolving into an entry
> level course in MOQ.
One of the main problems for science in general is the lack of terminology to express the enormous amount of new knowledge that doesn't fit into previously employed schemata(?). The MOQ may provide for this.
Horse
homepage - http://www.moq.org queries - mailto:moq@moq.org unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in body of email
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:49 BST