[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part2)

[Ian Glendinning]

I agree with that Dave, about being scared by the risks ...

(I still say name any thought system that doesn't have equivalent
problems / risks at both ends - in their mystical foundation and their
misapplied pragmatism.)

Social Darwinism / Evolutionary Psychology - which are close to my
take on MoQ anyway incidentally - are indeed tarnished by ill-informed
(and ill-intentioned) action justified using their arguments - lessons
to be learned by thorough debate and testing.

Stangely one reason I would defend the MoQ is the very fact that it
does temper "GOF" intellect's dominance, by reminding intellect that
it is much more subtle than science and objectivity. It has the
"right" to dominate but from enlightenment about risks and mistakes,
not from ignorance. (The very reason I find Bo's solution as missing
the main value in MoQ.)

Novelty too is a very poor argument for quality. 'Twas ever thus /
Nothing new under the sun - is an adage of mine, learned from Horace -
even when it comes to the MoQ. The best things to learn from are
mistakes, not new ideas I find.

But like you I'm scared by the risks - very scared - the main reason I
take such debate seriously. Interesting. I'm as interested in your
intentions and actions Dave, as your arguments.
Ian

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:03 PM, David Thomas
<combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
>> But isn't that just the "little knowledge" argument Dave ... is a
>> dangerous thing.
>>
>> Clearly, in the wrong hands the ill-advised with ill-intent, could do
>> a lot of moral damage with ... just about anything.
>>
>> My view is pragmatic. Name a preferable metaphysics, or working
>> world-view / model, or suggest why giving up seeking to find
>> improvement is preferable to "what the heck, it's not worth the effort
>> of managing the risks".
>>
>> I've no illusions over the MoQ's imperfections, and Pirsig's
>> imperfections are manifest, but ... so ... what ...
>
> I guess what scares me is the rigid structure of moral dominance with the
> intellectual level seen as the highest level of static good coupled with a
> mystical, undefined, quasi-religious DQ  and pragmatism could lead to
> newness of ideas by default being equated to goodness of ideas. I think this
> is what happened in part with the application of Darwin's work to societies
> prior to any real understanding of it's consequences.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>