<20000727004304.54131.qmail@hotmail.com>
Subject: MF Science or Emotivism? The answer is MU
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:11:21 +0300
Organization: Hebrew University
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Sender: owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
Hi Rick and Focs,
>
> Hey Jon,
> Good stuff....
I'm glad you liked it Rick :-)
However, it July is now almost finished, and we don't seem near any
resolution.
I'll be glad to continue in the MD forum, or maybe the issues will find
a place in
the new website project you mentioned (I am interested).
For now, continue trying to disSOLVE the 'Science or Emotivism?'
question.
> RICK:
> [re: This "evaluation" of the primary preintellectual reality is what
I
> believe Pirsig has isolated as the Q-event]....
> you don't agree
> that what I wrote is how Pirsig sees it, or that what I wrote is on
> with Pirsig and you now disagree with him?
I'll have to re-read Lila carefully to see if this expression "Q- event"
is an invention of our own (as I suspect), or something used by Pirsig
[can anyone help?]. Either way, my view is that Quality is an *ongoing*
process.
> JONATHAN
> >Sometimes, a question itself is pejorative - to answer it is to
> >accept some unspoken premise.
>
> RICK:
> And MU is the answer??? Now I disagree, especially because of my
> background in rhetoric (dropping credentials is also rhetorical and
emotive).
> Answering a rational question with a MU is like answering a
> scientific question by saying "Because it's God's will...."
> The same way religion has no place in
> science, MU has no place in rationality. Besides, the question this
month is
> "How can we discern the proper level for any respective pattern?" And
> you say the answer is "MU"????
The specific question to which I answered MU:
"Is the art of discerning the levels Science or Emotivism?"
The "Science or Emotivism" issue was stated explicitly as the header for
this month's programme (possibly against Rick's better judgment).
> RICK:
> When Phadrus was asked the question ["is Q subjective or objective?"]
he did not respond
> MU... he responded 'neither'. He asserted that Quality was the source
of
> subjects and objects and therefore didn't belong to either category...
he
> exposed the assumption, and explained himself. I don't remember what
> exactly Einstein said about waves and particles, but I don't believe
he ever
> actually "Mu"ed.
Einstein's answer was 'both particle and wave', and he also gave a
lengthy explanation.
I consider 'neither' and 'both' to be MU answers, that reject the
binary options of the either/or questions.
By giving MU answers with explanations, Einstein and Pirsig didn't solve
the problems posed by the questions but dissolved them.
Jonathan
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST