From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 18:40:51 BST
Hi David,
I think you're still using a naive understanding of what a 'fact' is. For
example, I would imagine you consider the word 'muscle' to be unambiguous
and non-metaphorical? Yet it derives from the Latin musculus meaning 'little
mouse' - and gains its force from the resemblance between the bicep and said
creature. Vast tracts of our language begin as metaphor and become 'fact' -
something which the shrub/tree analogy has ample room and compatibility
with, whereas the mother/child distinction has problems.
Our discussions of myth should go back to the Kingsley thread, I think,
which has gone off the boil a bit. My fault, probably.
Sam
The actual outlook is very dark, and any serious thought should start from
that fact. (George Orwell)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:35 PM
Subject: RE: MD what is a fact?
>
> Platt, Sam and all,
>
> Sam asked:
> Do you think there is a difference between how a fact is characterised in
> SOM thinking, and how it is characterised in the MoQ? If so, how would you
> describe that difference?
>
> DMB says:
> Since you've started a new thread, maybe you're raising a new issue. But
> just to be clear, the distinction between myth and fact is hardly related
to
> truth claims. Facts, in this sense, are not even necessarily true. A fact
is
> a statement that can be demonstrated to be true OR false, while a myth is
> NEITHER true NOR false. If I say, "My friend Sam is a rock", that is a
> metaphor - just as a myth is a metaphor. To read such a statement as a
fact
> renders it absurd and impossible. It would mean that you are a dislodged
> chuck of hardened sediment or crytalized minerals. The distinction between
> myth and fact is not about what's true and what's not, its just about two
> different forms of expression. To make this distinction is only to make
the
> simple assertion that for some things have to be read symbolically, and
not
> literally, in order to make intellectual sense. Facts are intended to be
> taken literally, while myths are not.
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 18:40:38 BST