Ah! - Drose:
the point about not compromising the message for the sake of 'fitting in',
communicating, or whatever, is well taken....BUT....".Your message is
absolute"?
Surely this has been the subject of recent discussions: can one ever
actually have such a thing as inarguable, absolute truth? Or to put it
another way, does a 'truth' have to be absolute in order to be inarguable?
My position in this is that "absoluteness" is a useful, but entirely
mythical and unprovable, concept. It only exists in areas such as
mathematics, which is similarly 'un-real' and tautological. In fact, it
seems to me that the condition of absoluteness requires the tautological
condition. So, 1+1=2 is absolutely true, but what has been said? - a variety
of implications absolutely come from this, (2-1=1, etc.,) which we find very
useful, but essentially we are saying the same thing over and over.
I can't think of any other area where such absoluteness can definitely* be
said to exist.
cheers
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: "drose" <donangel@nlci.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 30 September 2000 02:46
Subject: Re: Er: Re: MD platt.
> Hello, all!
>
> Dave writes:
>
> > It certainly seems to me that we are in agreeance that the author should
> > write/speak in such a way as to be most clear to the audience without
> > sacrificing meaning. However, I am less inclined to see a flaw with
> changes
> > in meaning, should that be acceptable to the author. A rigid clinging to
> > dogmatic views can bring communications to a rapid halt. However, both
> > parties must be willing to commit to sharing win/win scenario. If not,
the
> > person who seeks to communicate can be rapidly bullied out of the
> > conversation by the person who is merely preaching. What say ye unto
this?
>
> I say unto thee:
>
> If one is attempting to communicate a truth, rigidity in message is not
only
> necessary, but desirable.
>
> If you believe that it is true, for instance, that Jesus is the only way
to
> salvation, it would be foolish not to cling to that dogma. Further, it
would
> be a disservice to your audience to go "off message" if you care about
them.
> While you are free to change your method of delivery, your message is
> absolute. This, of course, applies to any communication which imparts an
> inarguable premise. ("There is a - or no - God" ... "The sky is falling"
...
> "The fox is in the henhouse")
>
> In matters of truth, the recipient is always free to reject the message
and
> live with the consequences, but the messenger is obligated to stay "on
> message" - or to shut up.
>
> Regards,
> drose
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:47 BST