From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 18:35:57 GMT
Nathan
OK, so here we have truth as being that which is implied in
the definition of the words we are using. You and I accept
that the experience of certain patterns will be called 'its raining'.
We have decided to cut reality up in a certain way. Raining or
not raining. The conceptual framework we have dreamed up
is used to invent the idea of a weather system with different states.
You might like to say it is 'raining now'. Having agreed our definitions
up front we can then look out of the window and decide is it 'raining now'.
So we can use our intersubjective agreement about our invented conceptual
frameworks. This enables a world in which weather can occur to appear.
Hence, for us post-modernists it is interpretation all the way down.
Although, as a critical realist I am quite happy to talk about nature
joining
the conversation of our langauge games. And as someone willing to do
metaphysics I would like us to talk about this strange capacity to play
language games and open a clearing in which Being appears.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Pila" <pila@sympatico.ca>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> David,
>
> A statement is true if it conforms with and is congruent with what our
> senses tells us.
> If I tell you that it is raining outside, and you look and see puddles and
> rain drops then you would accept that my claim is true. N'est pas?
>
> Nathan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:17 PM
> Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
>
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Maybe we can shift this argument about truth to
> > one about epistemology. Shall we discuss some specific
> > things we wish to say are true? What do we mean by them being true?
> >
> > regards
> > David M
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:33 AM
> > Subject: RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> >
> >
> > > Andy and all truth seekers.
> > >
> > > Andy said:
> > > I still don't understand the source of your irritation with Matt and
> > Rorty.
> > > I think you believe you have made some very specific objections that
> Matt
> > is
> > > avoiding, but I think he has honestly addressed each and every one of
> > them.
> > > Perhaps, it is becuase your points are do not come accross as clear to
> us
> > as
> > > they are to you.
> > >
> > > dmb says:
> > > I'd be happy to try and make my points clear. As I've said, answering
> > > questions and addressing objections is what its all about and I'm glad
> to
> > do
> > > it. But apparently I'm not worthy to speak of Rorty and so there
aren't
> > many
> > > questions asked about my thoughts, just dismissive insults and such.
> > >
> > > Andy said:
> > > I still don't know how this helps us recognize truth. Or how to
> identify
> > a
> > > dangerous idea. Or how to reveal the "right" morals to live by. You
> have
> > > said truth and morality are as real as trees and rocks, but you don't
> > offer
> > > us any way to percieve this reality. I don't see how Pirsig has given
> us
> > > another option. Do you see why I am confused? If truth is not what
we
> > can
> > > agree upon and if it is not absolute then what is it? How do we know
> it?
> > > Understand, that I am open to the possiblity of another way to
identify
> > > truth, if you can present it. I just have not grasped onto what it is
> you
> > > might be saying.
> > >
> > > dmb says;
> > > I don't think I was trying to answer all those big questions. We could
> get
> > > at them. They're good ones. But my point here is much more narrow than
> > that.
> > > My point is simply that Pirsig and Rorty have different theories of
> truth.
> > > (It seems they are hostile to each other in other fundamental ways
too.)
> > I'm
> > > just saying that Pirsig's theory of truth doesn't seek or lay claim to
> the
> > > absolute Truth. Nor does it assert that truth is merely a property of
> true
> > > statements. The MOQ's assertion that truth is simply a high quality
> > > intellectual explanation is far less grandiose than absolute Truth,
but
> it
> > > is far more "solid" and real than a property. For Pirsig, our truths
> about
> > > reality are more than a collective hunch too. Its the third choice you
> > asked
> > > for. The MOQ can't construe truth as a propery of statements because
> > > intersubjective agreement is still just subjectivity. In ZAMM he's
> trying
> > to
> > > get us to see technology, like his motorcycle, as ideas forged in
steel.
> > > He's asserting that the Buddha can be found in the gears of his
machine
> > just
> > > as well as in the petals of a lotus flower. The MOQ makes the idea
part
> of
> > a
> > > larger system where ideas are a product of creation in and of
> themselves,
> > > not an attribute of some other thing. In this picture, we don't agree
> > about
> > > the truth of ideas, we ARE ideas - among other things. There are
> propably
> > > lots of better ways to get at the differences, but I'd imagine you see
> > what
> > > I'm getting at by now. Let me know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 18:42:29 GMT