From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 18:07:39 GMT
Well, how you feel will be influenced by what you value,
you felt like a sun bathe, then rain is no good for you, you are
wanting your garden to grow then great, it never rains again, then
we are all going to die of thirst. You talk about rain, that implies you
care
about whether it is raining or not. If you don't care you don't invent the
language,
hence Eskimos have a lot more names for snow than you and I.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Pila" <pila@sympatico.ca>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> 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
>
>
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 - 18:26:26 GMT