From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 27 2004 - 18:05:30 GMT
Hi Matt
I was not being funny, I was suggesting that you stand back
and ask if you were really convinced by what you said. But
for a pragmatist you do not seem big on changing your mind.
At least with your emails I feel I know what you are talking
about, with many others I struggle to grasp what they are
trying to say. Your point about fantasy/hope becoming
reality is one I would strongly support and is obvious,
what I wanted toknow was how separate do you think
these things really are. I wonder if the public/private split
means only that certain things cannot be discussed but carry
on having big influence on the dance floor anyway, as you admit anyway,
so keeping them off the dance floor, sorry senate floor, is not really
much of a split in terms of what determines our political decisions, but
I would agree that it stops every decision being discussed all the way down
to metaphysics/religion, and practically stops a lot of going nowhere
argument.
But that says more about conflict and how we deal with it then some special
private/public split that is out of court for some reason of non-relevance.
And who is to say when/where something like metaphysics or religion does not
come into play right at the heart of our political decisions. Also
public/private
split may play a role in our real problem, i.e. the appalingly low level of
our
public debate.
Also, by the way, I belong to a non-faith religious group where we discuss
morality, politics, philosophy and religion and the theists and atheists
have
always got loads in common, often rather dogmatically, where as I usually
find myself with the pluralist-secularists and Buddists with my more
abstract notions of what I sometimes mean by employing the 'god' word.
Hey, the senate/capital floor is where we are meant to discuss our
conflicts.
If we keep them outside, some of that conflict will turn into war/violence
and
covert operations don't you think. I am for a little bit more self/common
understanding
and pluralism and a lot less private/public split.
kind regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?
> David,
>
> I read my e-mails over several times before I post them, thank you.
>
> Two points:
>
> One, there are a lot of things that started out as pure fantasy before
turning into viable hopes and then into actualities. In this case, I have
no idea why you would think the already quasi-actualized public/private
split (both in people and in gov'ts) is "pure fantasy."
>
> Two, I never said there was a problem with religion. There is only a
problem with conversations that occur where there is minimal hope of
agreement on anything of substance (hopes, purposes, language, etc.) which
is what happens when a theist and an atheist talk about God. Which is why,
when it happens on the Capital floor, I ask them to take it outside.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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 Feb 27 2004 - 19:07:41 GMT