[MD] Virtue, Superoirity and excellence.

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Interesting you should mention the shortcoming of Academia as valuing 
objectivity more than excellence because the last sentence of the article Arlo
and others praised...

[Arlo]
When did Arlo "praise" the article. I said it resonated with me on several MOQ
points. I recommended it because I thought others interested in the MOQ would
find it similarly referential. Did you read it? 

[Platt]
is: "Ethics, no less than science, aims at objectivity." 

[Arlo]
As someone whose sole knowledge of "academia" comes from the same right-wing
folk who labeled Pirsig a "radical professor", your continual squaking about
this is expected but boring. While you can no more say "every professor" than
you can say "every Indian", my ongoing experience in the Academy is that
excellence _is_ the goal, and that "objectivity" is a thing of the past. Even
within this article, the author acknowledges the cultural foundations of all
intellectual knowledge, and posits "objectivism" across a large cultural
firmament rather than a stand-alone, acultural position (one of the many MOQ
resonance points).

But let me ask, do you think the MOQ "aims at objectivity"? Or not? Do you
think it is "objective and acultural"? Or "subjective and cultural"? Are the
"truths" of the MOQ open to relativistic, cultural, personal scrutiny, or are
they "true for all people and for all time"? Isn't the latter "aiming at
objectivity"? Why not?