From: Matthew Poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 25 2004 - 14:37:30 GMT
Wim I agree. So we'd better go on discussing about practical
suggestions on how
to do the 'social stuff' that needs to be done (according to both of us).
Me: I have been thinking about this lately. I also agree.
Time is short
POot
----- Original Message -----
From: Wim Nusselder <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?
> Dear Matt K.,
>
> You wrote 12 Feb 2004 17:56:43 -0600:
> 'I think I'm in general in large agreement with you about philosophy (and
> also, in this case, politics). Our differences, I think, come down to
> terminology and practical suggestions.'
>
> I agree. So we'd better go on discussing about practical suggestions on
how
> to do the 'social stuff' that needs to be done (according to both of us).
> It's a pity that you prefer NOT to participate on that kind of discussion
on
> this list.
>
> I hope I didn't mince your words too much. If I did, it was just to get
more
> clarity.
>
> You wrote also:
> '"Vocabulary" could be defined [as "whole set of metaphors used by
> someone"], but I'm not sure what your question is.'
>
> My question was:
> 'If you're not content any more with "vocabulary" defined as a "systematic
> arrangement or organization of your beliefs", please provide another one',
> as vocabulary appears to be a core concept in your terminology.
>
> The dialectical hold I'm trying to get on you is of course, as always, to
> get an admission from you that a Metaphysics of Quality (or a Philosophy
of
> Quality or a Vocabulary of Quality if you prefer those terms) DOES have
> relevance for politics, for doing needed 'social stuff' and for realising
> the ideals the two of us share. The crucial point seems to be this
> distinction between 'public' and 'private', which you use to relegate our
> discusions here to the 'private' realm and the 'practical suggestions',
the
> politics and the 'social stuff' to the public part. I don't agree with
that
> separation. That disagreement is connected with my being a Quaker who does
> not agree with a separation between church and state if that implies that
my
> religious truths/insights/inspirations have no political relevance. (I do
> agree with it in the sense that the state should not be run exclusively by
> Quakers, of course.) Yes, 'Enlightenment intellectuals created the
> public/private split to
> increase their privacy, their freedom to do what they want.' But is it
still
> needed now that we have constitutions, democracy and all kinds of checks
and
> balances guarding that freedom? Yes, religious wars soaked the European
soil
> with blood, but don't do so any more (well, less so than in the USA, it
> seems after 11 Sept. 2001...), without a separation between church and
state
> that is taken to the extreme of even separating philosophy and state.
> Ironically religion seems to be more important in American politics
nowadays
> than it is in Dutch politics... It appears as if candidates for positions
of
> political power in the USA hardly have a chance if they don't profess to
be
> practising believers. Can you, as an American, explain that to me and
square
> it with 'Americans decided that religion should be a purely private
> affair'??
> Maybe you DO keep Plato's Republic off the Senate floor, but you don't
> appear to be very successful in keeping the Bible off the Senate floor,
out
> of your courts of justice etc. ...
> 'We only weigh and compromise the thin strip of land where compromise is
> possible.' you wrote.
> I'm afraid that this thin strip of public opinionmaking only leads to
> compromises of the kind that safeguard and promote American material and
> otherwise short-term interests at the expense of the social and ecological
> balance in your own society and in global society as a whole.
> Discussing philosophy and religion rationally in public may be essential
to
> allow intellectual patterns of value to lead and limit social patterns of
> value, which otherwise only re-create the law of the jungle on the social
> level. It's because Quakers (among others) felt the (religious) need to
> speak truth to power, to tell slave-holders and politicians serving their
> interests that slavery is morally wrong from their religious point of
view,
> that slavery was ultimately abolished in the USA... If they had really
been
> told that such views were beside the (political, public) point, the world
> would look quite different now and certainly not better!
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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 Feb 25 2004 - 14:37:18 GMT