Re: MD Access to Quality

From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 18:02:47 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Access to Quality"

    I'm not really sure if I consider a pragmatic approach to be desirable yet or not. I don't think I know enough about it to make that decision yet. But what I AM interested in figuring out whether the MoQ is pragmatic or not....a little bit ago one person suggested to others to leave the group with the justification that this is a pragmatic philosophy (even though their approach to discussion seems far from pragmatic).
    So this isn't really about if I find the pragmatic approach desirable it is about figuring out if the MoQ is pragmatic so I can get some consistent answers. Are you saying you don't think it is?
     
    Erin

    Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
    Hi Erin,

    > Ok but I still can't see how it can be considered a pragamtic approach. You
    > said to ham in one post that assumptions are not empirical. With this
    > expansion of the definition to include everything and its mother I don't
    > see why assumptions are not considered emprical or pragmatic. Because that
    > is getting into as you say "who experiences what"

    Perhaps you can explain to me why you seem to consider a "pragmatic
    approach" to be desirable. Pirsig takes a dim view of James' pragmatism in
    Lila, pointing out that Nazis were pragmatic. (For similar reasons I
    object to postmodernists making pragmatism an object of worship.)

    The problem I see with a "pragmatic" approach is that it begs the
    questions, "Useful in what ways to whom?" followed by a judgment, "Is
    that good?" (Actually the judgment comes prior to determining the action
    and its supposed beneficiaries.)

    For example, welfare programs that dole out other people's money were
    hailed as a pragmatic way to "help" the poor, but the results have turned
    out to be anything but helpful, creating a permanent dependent class. The
    successful trial and error experimental methods of science don't transfer
    well up to the level of human societies.

    "Pragmatic" social engineering usually ends up making more of mess of
    things than the mess it intended to clean up, not to mention the loss of
    individual liberty such engineering demands, a loss some people consider
    OK so long as their idea of a "greater good" is served -- a road that
    leads to tyranny.

    As to your question about assumptions, they are indeed empirical if you
    buy the MOQ view that ideas are experience like everything else. By
    contrast, in the S/O worldview the same assumptions are not empirical
    because they are not perceptible to the physical senses. It was in this
    latter SOM, scientific context that I said "assumptions are nonempirical."

    Platt

    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 : Wed May 18 2005 - 18:18:46 BST