[MD] Noncognitive babble

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Quote Putnam /Peterson.

(1) No statement is both evaluative and factual.

     Boolean logic in disguise,; a fact cannot be denied and confirmed at
the same time, or can be true and false at the same time.




(2) There is no logical connection between evaluative and factual
statements.

     sol,outstepping its role and purpose to bridge the metaphysikal level
and the physikal level at the same moment.



(3) Factual statements are true or false independently of any value
judgments.


     Boolean logic until true or false, then distorting out of boolean logic
stepping to a non defined field.





(4) Facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond controversy.

    crap. drivel.





(5) Evaluative statements are neither true nor false.


    Boolean statement falsified before encountering it ," the falsification
is evaluative"


My opinion?

this is probably only a Putnam try-out that was aborted before it could
walk.
Probably its this kind of crap that drove Bodvar over the edge.


Mr Peterson, i'v been reading in the archives , so i'm aware of the fact
that you are perfectly capable of finding the leeches in
Putnams monstruosity.
I value your opinion, and it is not by not interacting that i judge or not
judge your productions, you are a lot better than this.
Maybe a lesser moment? A temporary lack of inspiration?

Hmm, the rest of your lines in this posting , reflections on Pirsig? Well ,
i see/read a lot of suggestion/autosuggestion in it

As if you want to say, this moq is an autopsy, and there is nothing left
over of the corps.Probably, if you look at it this way...
Scaling down the moq, the work of Pirsig, others, --to a level idiots are
capable of understanding--, then you are wright , this will leave us with a
skeleton of philosophy

A skeleton of reason, of common sense,of personal growth.

If this is a proposal only , to scale down, than we will end up writing shop
manuals , cookbooks,touristic guides.....

Greetz, Adrie


2010/9/10 Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>

> Hi All,
>
> 20 years after Lila, I wonder how it would be read by someone new to
> Pirsig. Would the ideas seem relevent? As we get more and more
> distance from the positivists, I wonder how young people today would
> read Pirsig's attacks on the fact-value dichotomy. Would they wonder
> just who it is Pirsig thinks he is arguing against?
> Maybe this aspect of SOM that attracted most of us to the MOQ is a
> straw man. If Pirsig and the other antiSomers are successful, at least
> at some point it will be a straw man, right?  Someday young people
> just won't even know what Pirsig was going on about. At the time I got
> into Pirsig, I really felt like the notion of objectivity was being
> used to push values into some realm of noncognitive babble. Is that
> still happening today?
>
> Here are some examples of the views that Pirsig attacks with regard to
> the dichotomy between facts and values taken from an article on Hilary
> Putnam who also made such critiques on SOM:
>
> http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/putnam.htm
>
> (1) No statement is both evaluative and factual.
>
> (2) There is no logical connection between evaluative and factual
> statements.
>
> (3) Factual statements are true or false independently of any value
> judgments.
>
> (4) Facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond controversy.
>
> (5) Evaluative statements are neither true nor false.
>
>
> Are these dogmas ones that people still adhere to? Or have Pirsig,
> Putnam, and the other critics of the fact-value dichotomy been
> successful?
>
> Best,
> Steve
> 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
>



-- 
parser