>Hi Denis:
>
>> But do not, even for a moment, be fooled by the notion that a new
>> metaphysic can put you in touch with the fundamental ground-stuff of the
>> universe. No metaphysics, no science, no story is able to do that. Not
even
>> the MOQ.
>
>Au contraire mon ami. It wasn't until I read and grasped the MOQ that I
>got in touch with the fundamental ground-stuff of the universe--
>experience prior to thought . . . pure awareness . . . Quality. Whenever I
>wish to get in touch with it, I simply say, "Stop. Look." The immediate
>silence that follows is "It."
Then, Platt, I am absolutely overjoyed for you. But "Stop. Look." is a
practice, no the MOQ. :)
>The nice thing about a map is that by following it you can get to where
>you want to be. Of course, the MOQ is not the only map that can direct
>you to the fundamental ground stuff, but for me it's the best. For John
>B., a better map is found in the writings of Ken Wilber. For Sam, it may
>be "systematic theology." Others are still looking for the map that is
>best for them. But I dare say all of us here on this site are map-addicts,
>confident that following a guide is better than taking off in all
directions.
Amen to that.
>> It's not "better to prove", because it is *impossible* to prove anything
>> beyond the shadow of a doubt. Do not take my word for it, read some Karl
>> Popper. Only tautological truths are absolute.
>
>Is that a tautological truth?
Yes. By definition, a tautology means a proposition that says nothing more
in the predicate than is said in the subject. A tautological truth is
therefore always true, and by definition, that means absolute. It's circular
logic. :)
If you say "In Monopoly, you need four houses to buy a hostel", since those
rules are part of the definition of the game of Monopoly, you've just
uttered an absolute Truth, but also a tautological truth. Easy, no ? ;)
As for the "only", I can *only* point you back to ZAMM. Scientific truth
changes over time, but technology works anyway, so what's amiss, there ?
>Is Popper's claim that it is impossible to
>prove anything beyond the shadow of doubt a "fuzzy" claim or an
>absolute truth?
It's a logic property of the scientific method. If you say : "All ravens are
black", you can test this theory everytime you see a raven. But you cannot
be sure that the next time it won't be white, or red. Falsifiability is
ingrained in the definition of the scientific method, IOW. It might even be
tautological...
>If fuzzy (since it is impossible to prove), why is it any
>better than the belief that some things can be proven beyond a shadow
>of a doubt.
Because many people, some far more intelligent than I am have come to this
conclusion before me (Russel, among others), and because, frankly, that's
the best explanation I've got to offer for the evolutive nature of science.
Truth is relative, it evolves and changes, by following a moral evolution
(it gets "better").
Or, if you prefer, because from a MOQ pov, it makes more sense, it has more
harmony than from a "truth is absolute" one.
>Why believe Popper anyway?
I don't know, I kind of like him, you know ?
>
>I find it so hard to disagree with anything you write, Denis, that I get
>perverse satisfaction from finding something in your posts to question.
And I get the one of avoiding your little traps... ;)
Denis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:41 BST