Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?

From: David MOREY (
Date: Fri Feb 27 2004 - 18:05:30 GMT

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?"

    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
    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
    split may play a role in our real problem, i.e. the appalingly low level of
    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
    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
    If we keep them outside, some of that conflict will turn into war/violence
    covert operations don't you think. I am for a little bit more self/common
    and pluralism and a lot less private/public split.

    kind regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    To: <>
    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 -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 27 2004 - 19:07:41 GMT