From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 00:01:04 GMT
David,
Once again I thank you for your response. I read what you wrote and want you
to forgive me for not being able to get the meaning of the message. I accept
that we have a framework that allows us to talk about the weather. We can
say "it is raining" and this statement has meaning. Now my question is, what
insight can I draw from what you have written? How can I use your 'view' on
reality to my advantage? For example, if I am feeling badly about something,
and wish not to feel sad or angry or envious or ...., how can I make use of
the 'language games'?
Or is my question out of the realm of what you are speaking about?
By the way, I am now 3/4 of the way through ZMM. I found the long discussion
on 'quality' confusing. Maybe at the end, it will all come together for me.
Regards to you,
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> 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
>
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 : Fri Oct 31 2003 - 00:02:31 GMT