[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

Hi Horse,
I agree.  The dynamic portion of knowledge is in preventing dogma from
hindering its progression.  It is good to recognize dogma for what it is,
and use it for its value.  The use of such dogma is to arrive beyond it.
 The static levels of intellectual progress are somewhat bewitching and
often difficult to surpass.  They lend a sense of security and thus
complacency.  Such attributes are not necessarily bad in themselves, but
they are susceptible to authoritarian manipulation which can be harmful.

Data itself is open to dogmatic interpretation.  Certain paradigms can be
fully supported with data that is viewed in a static way.  Often the
breaking of this spell requires an outcast such as Phaedrus to provide the
seed for advancement.  The danger is of course the stagnation of a new
dogma.  I do not think MOQ is there yet, however I do note a tenacity to
stick with assumptions that perhaps can be interpreted in alternate ways.
 Such alternate interpretation can often lead to further understanding, they
can also mislead.  They should never be dismissed out of hand without some
thought, however.

Assumptions are necessary due to the nature of knowledge.  Questioning these
assumptions in terms of value is also appropriate.  Such questioning can
also lead to a disarray or stagnation of the inception of a new idea.  It is
a tough balance between questioning everything and questioning the right
thing.

By the way, I live a stone's throw from where Zappa's Camarillo Brillo is
from.  Zappa was one of my music heroes from the '70s just because he
challenged and was blasphemous about everything.  He was indeed a musical
genius.

She had that
Camarillo brillo
Flamin out along her head
I mean her mendocino bean-o
By where some bugs had made it red

Cheers,
Mark

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

>  Hi Mark
>
> As with any area of knowledge starting somewhere is essential. However,
> assuming that this starting point is unassailable and irrefutable is, as I
> think you point out, the origins of dogma.
> Questioning the origins of knowledge is best done by reasoning and not just
> replacement by a new dogma. Then there's good reasoning and poor reasoning.
> Ignoring data or experience which refutes a wanted conclusion is a species
> of the latter. Only when considering all relevant data/experience can
> reasoning be qualified as good reasoning and even then it is reason that
> decides what is relevant and what is not.
> As far as I'm concerned any process or area of knowledge that fails to
> question it's underlying assumptions is dogma. If it's wrong throw it out
> and start over or modify the original assumptions.
>
>
> Horse
>
>
>
>
> 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
>