Hi Jeremy, Rob, Rick, John L., Marco, Kenny, Roger, Mary, All:
This thread and the "MOQ as a moral guide" thread, which came to an
abrupt halt when Horse correctly asked that it be switched over to MD,
have revealed differences over what constitutes "reality" and "truth." For
example, Rob asserted "Reality is an assumption," Jeremy claimed
"Monistic reality is dead," and Rick declared "Facts are a special case
of opinion."
It's hard to carry on a discussion with someone whose ideas about
reality and truth are considerably different from yours. Of course I'm
describing my own reactions to some recent posts. But It has made
me wonder if many here disagree with Pirsig when he says:
"Quality is the primary reality of the world." (If you disagree with this,
why discuss the MOQ other than to allege, like Struan, that it's
nonsense.)
and
"Truth is an intellectual pattern of values." (At times I get the impression
that some believe truth is a social pattern of values to be determined by
some sort of group hug.)
and
"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience
and economy of explanation." (Does anyone disagree with the need for
adhering to logic and the correspondence theory of truth in our
discussions?)
When someone writes something that appears to ignore or challenge
these fundamentals, I'm convinced that further discussion with that
individual will come to naught. Specifically, if there is no mutual
understanding of what truth means, discussion becomes futile. I
especially find the postmodernist self-falsifying claim that "It's a fact
there are no facts" to be an insurmountable blockade to reasonable
debate.
But I could be wrong.
Platt
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 - 16:01:47 BST