[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[MarshaV]

Hi Horse,

I had thought that the MoQ is beyond forcing a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer within a philosophical discussion?  It wasn't the 'begging the question', so maybe my example was not a good one, if was the forced constraint.

``Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct.
    (ZMM, Chapter 20)

While this quote does not specifically address the yes/no dichotomy, it does point to the possible complexity of the response.  


Marsha   







On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Horse wrote:

> Hi Marsha
> 
> I can't see where Andre's question begging in his reply to Bo. From the last part of Bo's quote:
> 
> "physics (f.ex.) would not keep on making hypothesis and testing them if the objectivity rug was pulled from under them. This is what the SOL preserves"
> 
> if you rephrase it says:
> SOL preserves (retains) objectivity which enables physics (f.ex.) to keep on making and testing hypotheses
> 
> Andre asks simply:
> "are you suggesting that the importance of your SOL lies in retaining SOM's 'objectivity'? A simple yes or no will do."
> 
> 
> Seems like a straightforward question to the position that Bo maintains.
> How is the question being begged?
> 
> Horse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/03/2010 13:25, MarshaV wrote:
>> Andre,
>> 
>> Have you stopped beating your girlfriend?  A simple yes or no will do.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Bodvar to Dave T:
>>> MOQ's "DQ/SQ" split has nothing to do with SOM's "subject/object"
>>> one. Another thing, yes, SOM that have given up on "objects", but it
>>> has not given up on "objectivity" - these two must be kept apart -
>>> physics (f.ex.) would not keep on making hypothesis and testing them
>>> if the objectivity rug was pulled from under them. This is what the SOL
>>> preserves.
>>> 
>>> Andre:
>>> Clarification please Bodvar;are you suggsting that the importance of
>>> your SOL lies in retaining SOM's 'objectivity'? A simple yes or no
>>> will do.
>>> 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
>>>     
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>>   
> 
> -- 
> 
> Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
> 
> 
> 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


 
___