RE: MF Discussion Topic for March 2005

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 01:00:41 BST

  • Next message: Marty Jorgensen: "RE: MF Discussion Topic for March 2005"

    Howdy Focusers:

    dmb had 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."

    Glenn said:
    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.

    dmb replies:
    Why the sarcastic hostility? Aren't we supposed to be talking about where
    emotions fit into the MOQ? Is that not the elected question of month? So why
    the mockery? If you want to make a case that "this exciting test" does not
    work that's another thing altogether...

    Glenn continued:
    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.

    dmb replies:
    Are you kidding? Are you denying that the medical sciences are based on
    sensory data, on what we can see through microscopes and such? Sure, the eye
    doctor will ask you what you're seeing during the examination and your
    family doctor will ask how you're feeling and such. But that does not negate
    the facts that doctors have instuments with which they can directly examine
    your eyes and learn a great deal. My boy's had glasses since he was three.
    In that case the examiner had to depend less on his help and more on the
    objective readings. There was some pretty fancy stuff I hadn't seen before.
    In any case, I think you are bending over backwards to deny a very obvious
    thing; we can see eyeballs but we can's see emotions. Corneas, lenses and
    retinas are detectable and measurable with scientific instruments while egos
    are not. How is that simple assertion even debatable, let alone worthy of

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MF Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 03:48:15 BST