RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 22:01:31 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Western achievement"

    DMB,

    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 said: "In MOQ terms, truth and morality are not just subjective attributes of objective realities, they are just as real as rocks and trees."

    and

    "The Pragmatists think the choice is between intersubjective truths and the ultimate absolute truth, and that we really have no choice because there is no such thing as the ultimate truth."

    Andy: I think this is right--what you say about pragmatists, and I am waiting for you to enlighten me on a possibility of a third choice. And I am anticipating it even more because you are going to give us Pirsig's option for uncovering truth and morality. But here is what we get.

    DMB: "THis picture includes the primary reality, but unlike anything like a foundationalist metaphysics, that reality in the undefible mystical reality. Everything else, the world we can define and know in the ordinary sense, is an evolutionary jungle with contingency and provisionality built right in. Is a static reality where cultures and languages and ideas blend with and are absorbed by other cultures, languages and ideas. And in that forrest of evolving manifestation, truth is a real thing. Its a species of Quality, intellectual static quality. It is neither the "Absolute truth" nor the mere "propety" of a statement."

    Andy: 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.

    Thanks,
    Andy

    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 : Sun Oct 26 2003 - 22:02:15 GMT