From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 09 2005 - 20:00:26 BST
Ham,
--- For example, you did not directly answer this question:
---
--- > In that context [space/time reality], does material evolution occur
--- > independently and prior to our beliefs or not?
Paul: Could I have been any more direct than -- "In the context of the
prevailing scientific world-view, and the MOQ static levels, material
evolution occurred independently and prior to our beliefs." -- ???
---
--- Paul:
--- > Your statement, "When we talk about truth and falsehood it is
--- > generally understood that..." is a good example of what I mean by "the
--- > consensus of belief." So you already know what it means.
---
--- Yes, I know what a consensus means. What I asked was why we need one
--- to form a personal belief system. Do YOU know what a "collective
--- consciousness" means?
Paul: No.
---
--- Paul:
--- > Regarding an individual's awareness of his historico-temporal
--- existence, I
--- > doubt any individual born and living outside of any cultural contact
--- would
--- > have that awareness.
---
--- Again, you deliberately miss my point. One is aware of the concept of
--- linear time and can reason that such events as the Big Bang occurred
--- millions of years ago without having been there.
Paul: My point was that one is aware of linear time and the Big Bang only
because one is living in a culture which educates people to be aware of
linear time and the Big Bang. Are you saying that the concept of "millions
of years ago" is somehow innate to humans?
---
--- Paul:
--- > There is idiosyncrasy in one's beliefs but to develop your own truly
--- > personal belief system you would first have to develop your own
--- personal
--- > language system. I guess you may argue that you are free to do that
--- > (although Wittgenstein would have disagreed).
---
--- Whether Wittgenstein agrees or not, the English language suffices for me
--- to
--- explain my belief system, and I don't need any language to formulate
--- it.
Paul: My point is that one's beliefs can't be separated from the language
in which they are spoken/written (they aren't sat there in some latent form
waiting to be expressed) and every language comes embedded with so many
shared assumptions about the world that there is very little that is truly
personal (sentimental connotations aside) in anything we say. Originality
in thought is originality in language which occurs through new metaphor etc.
--- You seem to be arguing for a "semiotic" universe rather than one founded
--- on
--- Quality. What I hear you saying is that reality is symbolic, hence has
--- neither substance, nor sentience, nor value. I don't think MoQ's author
--- would approve of this brand of nihilism, and I don't think you do
--- either.
Paul: I think you have me confused with Scott. I don't think the universe
is semiotic, I don't really know what that means.
---
--- Paul:
--- > Instead of an innate function of some "organ" called mind, one may
--- > say that reason is just an acquired and/or learned skill of using
--- > conventional symbols within a set of rules to predict and help control
--- one's
--- > experience.
---
--- Mind, as I'm sure you know, is not an "organ"; it is the cognizant locus
--- of
--- the cerebro-nervous system (its biological instrument). Without
--- individual
--- consciousness you would have no experience, let alone a "consensus" to
--- formulate rules or language.
Paul: Please read more carefully, it might save a lot of time and effort
arguing against something I haven't said. I said, "*Instead of* an innate
function of some "organ" called mind..." You keep on talking about reason
as a faculty of the mind. This implies that there is something called mind
which has functions which makes it sound like an organ. I am saying reason
is more like a skill that one learns and not a special function of something
called mind that humans are born with.
---
--- Paul:
--- > You don't need a consensus or an authority to have a belief but
--- nevertheless
--- > most of your beliefs are "common sense," which is mainly a mixture of
--- > consensus and authority. Or are you going to tell me that you
--- reasoned it
--- > all out for yourself?
---
--- Yes, I reasoned my philosophy out for myself, although influenced of
--- course
--- by a variety of thinkers who had the same objective. Does that surprise
--- you?
Paul: I'm surprised that you are so naïve to think that you have reasoned
out everything you know from scratch, including your philosophy.
--- In simple terms, then, precisely what is your reality? Is it the
--- reality of
--- scientific materialism, or the reality of Value as proposed by Mr.
--- Pirsig?
--- (And please don't tell me that they are the same.)
Paul: My reality is just my experience. The MOQ is a set of beliefs that
help me make sense of my experience. If I think of my experience as being
primarily of values it helps me make more sense of my life than if I think
of it as all just being particles floating around and colliding in several
dimensions.
Regards
Paul
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 : Thu Jun 09 2005 - 20:29:04 BST