[Steve] Are these assumptions different in nature than the sorts of dogmatic claims made by religions?
[Arlo] These assumptions lead man to "religion" or "science" depending on their nature. They are foundational to both, so yes, they share that nature. These two are not exhaustive, however. I'd add "mysticism" to this list as well. And most "-ologies" and "-osophies" as well. [Steve] Are these statements about metaphysics themselves "core assumptions"? [Arlo] All statements about metaphysics are self-referential, and therefore unavoidably contain paradoxical and recursion. Every "back up" in our analysis requires new footing. Eventually there is nothing to stand on. We have two options. Accept the underlying Incompleteness and try to talk metaphysics using metaphors that are essentially recursive, or back up into the Void where there is no words. In Maus, Art Spiegelman reflects that while Samuel Beckett did in fact say "Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness. On the other hand, he did say it." Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
