[MD] Redressing the MoQ

[Magnus Berg]

Hi DT

> I'm less than half way through so anything I say would probably be
> misleading. But his basic claim is science needs to move from a "philosophy
> of knowledge" which seeks "objective truths" to a "philosophy of wisdom"
> which seek "valuable truths." To do this science needs to move from
> "standard empiricism" to "aims based empiricism" a term he creates.
> Here is a link to his website: http://www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk/

I find his aims a bit human centric for my taste, but I didn't really read all 
that much so perhaps I missed something.

> Interesting I emailed him asking about his view on Lila and his response was
> similar to those I got from both Rorty and Alexander when I ask them the
> same question.
>
>> [quoted from maxwell's response]
>> Thank you for your email.  I have read Lila, but found it
>> less interesting than his first book.
>>   I don't believe quality is metaphysically fundamental in
>> the way Pirsig proposes in Lila.

 From what I read on his site, he hasn't bothered to investigate much of what 
*is* metaphysically fundamental. His aims seems to be very disconnected from any 
metaphysical reality, so I guess he really don't care.

>> [Magnus]
>> I actually don't think the intellectual level is such as mystery. The
>> mystery comes along when you start involving "me"s and "I"s, but those include
>> much more than just static intellectual patterns.
>
> But that is just the point if intellectual patterns are values; "me's" and
> "I's" should be an integral part of them.

Aha, actually, I think it's completely the opposite. Static patterns are 
supposed to be the most basic ground stuff of reality. As such, Mes and Is can't 
be more basic, and isn't that what you meant above?

> If truth is "a species of good",
> "valuable truths" the intellectual level must be expanded from Bo's SOL
> ridgidty of objective knowledge for knowledge sake, to quality knowledge of
> what is good for "us" to know when we act.

Can you re-read that and maybe add some commas here and there? It didn't make 
much sense to me.

But the "good for us" part sounds like Maxwell, right? I still think it sounds a 
bit human centric.

Cheers,

	Magnus