FWIW, I occasionally entertain the idea of a *Universal Grammar* for belief[⍦]. The idea being that there may be some genetic component of the belief faculty, and that by analogy to universal grammar, one acquires competence in one's own beliefs through performance[⌂][◇]. At any moment, a person makes decisions and suffers the reality that they did or did not believe what they thought they might. Here, I am defining belief more narrowly than most. For me, beliefs are necessarily discovered, and not the kind of thing one 'discovers' by considering hypotheticals. Alternatively, it feels wonderful to reject *-archies in favor of rhizomatic thought[⍼], à la, "A Thousand Plateaus". Taken together, an invigorating experience akin to visiting a sauna with a cold plunge.
[⍦] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar [◇] The connection I am drawing to Glen's linked paper is to: 1. similarities between alethic and doxastic modalities. 2. highlighted tensions between constructivist and analytical modalities. [⌂] I think of a theory of this kind as weakly rejecting the notion of Peircean truth. Different individuals, with different biologically determined universal belief structures, would ultimately believe different things in the long run. What would be considered truth, in the long run, could only then be a tragedy of intersectional beliefs. [⍼] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome_(philosophy) -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
