Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 21:14:14 GMT

  • Next message: Erin N.: "RE: MD The MOQ makes inroads"

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 21:14:54 GMT