[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Hi Mike, Bo made the similar point ...

Would that a few such philosophers were really so powerful, but the
important angle is this, I believe.

If "we" undemined objective enquiry completely that would be a
disaster - agreed.

Pragmatically, as I've said many times, subjects, objects, newtonian
physics, are just fine for much of daily life, and will probably
remain so. "Objective Scientific Method" will remain central to
advancing "scientific" knowledge, whatever the domain, as far as I can
tell.

What needs undermining is the idea that this kind of objectivity has
exclusive rights to advancing knowledge, rational enquiry and
justifying decisions in all and any domains. There is no domain in
REAL life (scientific or otherwsise) which is governed entirely by a
SOMist metaphysics. We need a working model which has subjects and
objects and objectivity in their rightful place, not as the fundaments
of metaphysics.

We must not throw baby out with the bathwater.
That's not just dangerous, it's criminally low quality.
A more subtle mode of change is called for.

Softee, softlee, catchee monkee - as I may have said.
Sorry, but I'm pasionate about this aspect :-)
Ian

On 1/5/06, Michael Hamilton <thethemichael at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The Quality idea is extremely dangerous to objective intellectual
> value, for the same reason that objective intellectual value
> endangered social value (as described in LILA). Ever heard of the US
> administration's attitude to the "reality-based universe"? I get the
> uneasy feeling that they have a partial realisation of something like
> Quality. A little knowledge is an extremely dangerous thing. Just as
> the intellectuals in their triumph over society released biological
> value from its shackles to a dangerous extent, my paranoid self can't
> help but worry that a few powerful philosophers might be undercutting
> the value of objective inquiry in order to manipulate society and
> popular opinion to their advantage.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 1/5/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bo, (and Platt)
> >
> > I appreciate many of the contributors to the Edge took the same direct
> > line, but many, and the intent of the original question was something
> > "true but dangerous" rather than "false and dangerous". I'm sure Platt
> > got it when he recognised beauty as true but dangerous..
> >
> > You said
> > > IMO the real danger about the MOQ is that "truth" is shown to be
> > > a static level that made its entry on the historical scene with the
> > > Greeks, already this undermines it, particularly if the MOQ is
> > > supposed to introduce a "many truths" reality as you, Paul
> > > apostles, want it to ;-).
> >
> > I actually think you are confused here. I don't understand your point.
> > I do not believe truth is static in any greek or SOMist sense, but
> > evolves in line with the MoQ. Obviously the MoQ "undermines" anyone
> > who does believe it. I don't introduce "many truths" - just a
> > different, paradoxical, evolving truth - no arbitrary relativism here.
> > (Subject of many of the Edge responses by the way.)
> >
> > Do you believe "truth" is a static level (in any metaphysics of reality) ?
> >
> > You also said that I seem to "relish" the destabilising effect.
> > That could not be further from the truth. I'm an evolutionary, not a
> > revolutionary. My whole interest is in avoiding the catastrophe. I'm
> > acutely aware of the "danger of untrammelled truth. My objective is to
> > find ways of getting the means for evolving truth into the mainstream.
> > At present MoQ is my best hope. The difficult part is how to get it
> > into the mainstream scientific and philosophical questions you
> > mention, without rejection and destruction - a constructive synthesis.
> >
> > Some eggs will always get broken, the kitchen will always get hot. The
> > point (of anything in life) is to make sure any collateral damage is
> > minimised on the path to progress. ie being aware of the dangers, in
> > order NOT to escalate them. I relish that problem, not the
> > consequences of the dangers.
> >
> > How you cannot understand my position after all this time is baffling.
> > A bit like Platt, I know you are not that dumb :-)
> > Ian
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>