Fellow Foci,
Sender: owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
It's ~2 days before the end of the month, time to start voting on the topic suggestions for next month. You may vote between now and 31-August-2001, inclusive. To cast your vote, please reply to this message stating the number of your choice from the two suggestions listed below. Your vote will not appear until all votes are in and the new topic is announced on 1-September-2001.
(1) Nothing (Andreas)
What psychological and metaphysical value holds and implies the idea of 'nothing' as used by Robert Pirsig.
(2) Them Pesky Injuns (January List via Horse)
The conjecture that Indians had some huge influence on American thought is never supported well.
(3) Quality not in mind (Bo via Horse)
The statement made by Phaedrus of ZAMM (Chp.19) that Quality does not reside in the
material world is readily accepted, but the rest of it - that it doesn't reside in the mind -
seems more obscure. What does it mean that Quality is not of mind?
(4) Ought vs. Is
The Fact/Value Dichotomy comes up occasionally as a bone of contention that the MoQ
should be able to either solve or dissolve. This seems to have started with Hume and, I think, "A Treatise on Human Nature". Referring to proofs of the being of God: "... when of a sudden I am surprised to find that instead of the usual copulations of propositions "is" and "is not", I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an "ought" or "ought not" ... as this "ought" or
"ought not" expresses some new relation or affirmation it is necessary that it be observed and
explained; and at the same time a reason should be given for what seems altogether
inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely
different from it." In other words, is it reasonable to derive OUGHT from IS and does
the MoQ allow, or preferably insist, that this is acceptable.
(5) Abstract (ShyGuy)
If something qualifies as ABSTRACT (referring to an example from ZAMM...Quality!), then is it possible to retain its abstractiveness....coz then it is more like...."i dont understand it...hence it is abstract!"...which means for everything qualified as ABSTRACT by one person, there must be a threshold of understanding possessed by someone whos does not qualify it as abstract. this means that nothing can be absolutely abstract!
Cheers,
Keith
______________________________________________________________________
Keith A. Gillette <http://ninepatch.net/gillette/>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST