RE: MD A metaphysics

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 21:38:46 BST

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD What comes first?"

    Platt, Matt n'all

    Platt said ...
    To have a belief and hold it to be true are the same thing. Matt has
    beliefs but denies his beliefs are true in any absolute sense. His
    denial, of course, is an absolute.

    I say
    That's a smartass corollary to the Catch22 I keep going on about.

    Regards
    Ian Glendinning

    PS1 Just got back from a week long trip in China.
    PS2 I agree with Matt
    PS3 Yes David, I spotted your challenge somewhere in the last 300 mails, but
    I need you to respond to my last message to you, before I see it worth my
    (anybody's) while to respond.
    PS4 Just finished Lakoff and Johnson - Metaphors We Live By
    http://www.psybertron.org/2003_08_01_archive.html#106103076202125508

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
    Sent: 16 August 2003 14:06
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics

    Hi Joe, Matt

    > Platt, you have stated that a metaphysics is a belief system. I think
    > Matt also assumes that a metaphysics is a belief system. He does not
    > believe in metaphysics.
    >
    > Both of you seem to accept that a person only has a belief in words.
    >
    > Is it any wonder that you find agreement while disagreeing?

    To have a belief and hold it to be true are the same thing. Matt has
    beliefs but denies his beliefs are true in any absolute sense. His
    denial, of course, is an absolute.

    Be that as it may, agreement or mutual understanding presupposes some
    form of communication between two parties, usually but not always
    verbal. But, as we've learned from the MOQ, nonverbal evaluation comes
    first, then verbalization, then communication, then agreement or
    disagreement. All these steps take place so quickly and so
    automatically that we rarely recognize and identify the process. Thanks
    to Pirsig, we now can.

    I agree with Matt on many things, mostly his interpretation of the MOQ.
    Where we disagree is that he believes Rorty's "group truth" is better
    than Pirsig's "individual truth" whereas I believe just the opposite.
    At this point after the numerous exchanges, the chance for either of us
    persuading the other to change beliefs in this regard is very low. In
    other words, I wouldn't bet on it. :-)

    Platt

    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 : Sat Aug 16 2003 - 21:39:28 BST