Re: MD Contradictions

From: Robin Brouwer (rsbrouwer@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 20:20:27 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Contradictions"

    >From: Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: Re: MD Contradictions
    >Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
    >
    >Robin, David,
    >
    >Thank you for your thoughts. I had the original/creative vs static/others
    >thoughts distinction down but where the line starts to blur is more
    >applying it to examples. Maybe if you could apply your ideas using
    >specific examples I would better understand where you think the line is
    >drawn at. When you talk about his or her "truth" that sounds very
    >postmodern to me and that is no no around here....so we want "original"
    >thinking without the subjectivity of postmodernism
    >
    >Another thing I would like to explain is the meaning of perennial
    >philosophy. I have looked it up in the dictionary but am wondering if you
    >have "expanded" the definition to where it is no longer recognizable (like
    >empirical). The dictionary defintion I am going by is
    >
    >per·en·ni·al
    >
    > Appearing again and again; recurrent. See Synonyms at continual.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >With the idea of perennial philosophy where is the "original"
    >thoughts---the "clear" line between philosophy and philosophology?
    >
    >Erin
    >

    Erin,

    To be honest my knowledge of postmodernism is close to none, however my
    choice of words might have led you to believe so.
    When speaking of truths I was rather using them as a Sophist would, when
    using truth I might also speak of someone's belief or philosophy. Any
    existing philosophy would be someone's truth. I might not have chosen my
    words very well, but in my opinion an existing philosophy (or truth) is
    indeed a static patern, when a person uses a different static patern (or
    different philosophy (or truth)) to prove the other wrong then I would call
    it a philosophologer.
    However if he uses his own dynamic/creative beliefs and experiences to
    create a new philosophy or to identify with an existing one, I would call
    him a philosopher.

    This was my opinion and by writing it down I can now clearly see the
    contradiction.
    Instead of writing down my blurry ideas at this time, I would rather ask a
    question.

    Would you say either role (philosophologer or philosopher) is moraly better
    than the other, and on which basis?

    Robin.

    _________________________________________________________________
    MSN Webmessenger overal en altijd beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 06 2005 - 20:23:55 BST