Hi Scott:
> As Wim points out (1/9) (and as -- who else -- Barfield also does) it is
> the intellect that provides public content, while our emotions/perceptions
> are necessarily private. As always, mathematics provides the clearest
> example of this. No one can disagree that if one accepts Euclid's
> postulates then opposite angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
Oh, oh. Public/private? Not another metaphysical split I hope. (-:
> The more our thoughts are made public, the more they become refined to
> allow the possibility of general agreement, even if that agreement needs to
> be in the form of "If...then..." statements. In this way, our
> presuppositions become opened up for inspection and reworking.
I'm sure your not proposing that "general agreement" is a path to truth
or goodness. Or are you?
> So, Platt, yes, we do eat our menus, in that LILA (for example) is food for
> thought. I don't think this is "merely a metaphor", but an acknowledgment
> of the first-class reality status of the intellectual level.
I think you are torturing the metaphor a bit much. Man cannot live on
menus alone, nor are they especially appetizing. I'll take a good steak
any day. As for the intellectual level, it's part of reality. But as defined
by the MOQ, hardly first-class, at least not the SOM version of intellect
that dominates the level today.
Guess I better read Barfield.
Incidentally, have you read "The Way of the Explorer" by Edgar Mitchell,
the astronaut? Comes as close as any scientist I know to the MOQ
view, although still stuck in S/O split.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST