Hello Bobby,
> I'm afraid, thats not what i ment at all. Rather than defend a
relativistic
> point of view, i have been trying to defend the only worthwhile
> non-relativistic
> point of view, in post after post, and that is the Reality of that which
is
> COMMON (or non-relativistic) to us.
I'm sorry I got you wrong - I haven't read the moq-focus posts for several
months so I 'm a bit behind. Reading the post over again I see I was
confused when you insist on the personal aspect of experience. Do I get you
right when I conclude that we humans can never oversee the whole of reality
(or "thruth") and therefor can only use imperfect metafysic theories to an
certain goal ? Further I understand you to defend diversity of
thought/experience/intelligence for not becoming "one big robot" ?
> Nice to know that you are a student of Physics. If you can spare the
> time,Jaap
> can you tell me as to what you think is the difference between Physics and
> Metaphysics or are they the same ?
There is a vast diffenrence between the two. At best you can say that
fysics, just as the rest of the sciences, is a small part of the metafysica.
Metafysica in general studies "the way the world is" - fysics does this also
but then constrained by a lot of (apriori) assumptions and dogmas, the same
for goes any science (maybe except philosophy since they clame to think
metafysically). Each science studies only a part of reality - metafysica
tries to study the complete reality, tries to have an overview over the
sciences. I think the asumptions used by the fysica are not justified by the
metafysica (as it should be when science was well organized) but only by
there functionality in predicting the behaviour of anorganic systems.
Jaap
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST