From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 16:13:12 BST
Erin,
Erin wrote about my quote from Rorty: The reweaving idea makes sense to me
but the erasing idea doesn't. See I had thought it is better approach to
encourage people to evolve their concept of God than encourage to drop the
concept because I don't even know what it means to drop a concept. Here the
talk of erasing a concept doesn't really make sense to me because nothing is
being erased so why use that word? Changing your attitude to a concept
makes sense but that is not erasing the concept. The only way erasing makes
sense if you couldn't recognize the concept. I don't really get how the
encaspsulating the old belief really differs from the erasing the old
belief....could you explain these to make it a little more distinct. I am
not really clear what having no attitude about a concept means either? Does
he mean make it undefined?
Paul: I'd be interested in hearing Matt's response to this, but, thinking
about it in evolutionary terms, we could say that some intellectual patterns
become extinct - are an evolutionary dead-end. Rather than being erased
they may be "stuffed" and kept in a museum of sorts I suppose. I guess that
is one definition of University!
Is e.g. Ptolemaic astronomy an intellectual pattern that people should be
encouraged to develop? As I see it, it lost its intellectual quality in
relation to the general propositional truths that were weaved in with the
Copernican patterns.
Have the Ptolemaic patterns been "erased?" I don't know. Certainly their
value has.
Thanks for your interest.
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 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 17:32:55 BST