From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Sat Apr 02 2005 - 00:39:08 BST
Hi Folks
There are four suggestions to choose from this month. As always if there
is not a clear winner - i.e. a tie - those that have tied will be selected and a re-vote will
be run.
You have until about midnight on April 4th (approx. 3 days) to send in your vote.
There is only 1 vote per member so please don't vote for more than 1 topic.
The vote posts will not be forwarded to the list but the final list of results will be posted
some time after midnight on Monday, so don't get worried that your
post hasn't made it. All the voters will be shown in the CALL FOR VOTES final
results so if you don't see your name on it email the moderator then.
Any topic that is not used will be added to a page of potential topics which
can be re-suggested at a later date.
Below you'll find the list of topics on which to vote.
Cheers
Horse
DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR April 2005
=================================
1) "The MOQ is a continuation of the mainstream of 20th century American
philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which says the
test of the true is the good. It adds (THE MOQ ADDS!!!) that this good is
not a social code or some intellectualized Hegalian absolute. It is direct
everyday experience. Through this identification of pure value with pure
experience, the MOQ paves the way for an enlarged way of looking at
experience which can resolve all sorts of anomalies that traditional
empiricism has not been able to cope with."
When Pirsig denies that the "good" in his version of pragmatism is a social
code or "some intellectualized Hegalian absolute" what is he denying
exactly. What is a "Hegalian absolute" and why is it better to replace such
things with "pure experience"? Or more generally, what is Pirsig doing to
Pragmatism here?
David Buchanan
2) For this month I suggest we discuss the dynamics of an intellectual revolution. Seems
to me as though present social pattern remains best when you take a "old fashioned"
approach. Regardless of a person's knowledge, how we can abadon this pattern and
seek intellect from each person. To possibly setup an attempt which could leave the old
fashioned path behind.
D. Doss
3) Continue last moths topic.
Mark Maxwell
4)dmb said:
"If emotions and egos were biological then we would be
able to detect them with scientific instruments, but
we can't, so they aren't. If you can show a picture of
an ego or of anger, or show it to me in a microscope
then I might buy it. This is why I think emotions have
to be categorized at the social level, at least."
Ever since Pirsig mentioned in LC that the President
of the United States can't be detected by any
scientific instrument and therefore has to be at the
social level (at least), the MOQ acolyte can now wheel
out this exciting test to categorize all kinds of
reality, as David has just done with ego and emotions.
Let me try it out myself on something else. I had an
eye checkup yesterday. Can a scientific instrument
(currently) tell whether I am sighted or blind,
near-sighted or far-sighted? No, the latest technology
prescribes that I stand in front of an eye chart and
tell you what I can and can't see. Can I show you a
picture of vision or can I show you near-sightedness
under a microscope? Of course not. And by this
reasoning, vision must be categorized at the social
level (at least). I find this goofy myself but, with a
nod to Strawson, I suppose it's because I find myself
trapped in some dead theoretical framework.
Glenn Bradford
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 02 2005 - 01:01:16 BST