From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Jul 20 2005 - 08:14:38 BST
Hi Matt and Erin,
I agree with Erin on the erasing and the "simply dropping". I've shown
this in my email to Paul and I also show the way I see it with a comment
on Matts example below.
Matt Kundert wrote:
> Erin,
>
> Erin said:
> 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 ersasing makes sene
> 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?
>
> .. say a person, let's say----me----say this person grew
> up believing in God, went to Church every Sunday, was confirmed a
> Methodist in 8th grade, and then, when pressured about the existence of
> God and such, went, "Well, to tell you the truth, I don't really feel
> like defending the Guy 'cuz, if I can be honest, He's never really been
> that important to me." This person doesn't say he believes in God
> anymore, more because he can't see anything important hinging on it
> except his membership to the Church (actually, that didn't even hinge on
> it; I'm just that lovable). Ask him if he believes in God and he gets
> kinda' shruggy: "I guess not. I mean, if belief requires some kind of
> activity, like, I actively believe in God, then I don't believe 'cuz it
> never crosses my mind. But then, I also don't stand around all day
> actively disbelieving in God either." This kind of person has an
> apathetic attitude towards the belief in God.
>
> In this sense, since as long as a word is understood by the vast
> majority of a culture, people will have an attitude about it, Rorty
> isn't suggesting that we can suddenly one day have _no_ attitude towards
> it: there will be an attitude, but it will be one of "Weh---should I
> care?"
I think that Rorty is suggesting you can simply drop it.
> However, in the long run of a culture, words can drop out of use
> so much that people just won't have an attitude about it, largely 'cuz
> no one will have heard of it or understand it.
Why would no one have heard or understood this word when originally by
your own definition this word "is understood by the vast majority of a
culture". What caused the huge shift in values? I think that such a shift
occurs because new patterns have been introduced which encompass the older
ones which are now not so valuable anymore. Unlike what Rorty suggests
where suddenly, for no reason, the patterns are "simply dropped".
David Harding.
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 Jul 20 2005 - 09:37:31 BST