SA previously:
> > With all that you said here, why couldn't,
> to use your analogy, reality be the tent moves?
Magnus:
> Hmm, not sure what you mean. The point of the
> strings pulling a tent is to keep
> it from collapsing, not primarily to keep it from
> moving. But perhaps I missed
> your point?
SA: I didn't see any "strings" in your first analogy.
I guess I'm giving a third category to the 'tents
movement'. As I mention below and you responded to
below, you mention the tent moves by something outside
the tent or something inside the tent. I'm suggesting
the tent moves, and where metaphysics is oriented
according to the movement of the tent is 'the tent
itself moving'. Metaphysics partakes in the movement
of the tent. Metaphysics, for me, is grounded in a
human's perspective, but as I mentioned with Ron in
the '[MD] This Event' this human perspective is
anthronaturmorphic. This though, might be going too
far, for the moment, as to where metaphysics is
grounded, but also I guess I'm pointing out how
metaphysics partakes in the tent's movement in order
for metaphysics to know more intimately the reality of
the tent moving. I'll move on though, for your tent
analogy seems to have brought up two categories of
metaphysics, and I may have involved a third category.
Let's see.
SA previously:
> > Isn't your analogy locking you into a certain
answer?
> You limited the tents movements to be from
conditions
> > inside the tent or from outside the tent, correct?
> > You did say, "etc..." after this, but I don't know
> > what's in your "etc..."
Magnus:
> I gave one example of something inside the tent and
> one of something outside to
> illustrate that a metaphysics can be thought of
> being inside reality or "other
> worldly". That was the two main classes of
> metaphysics models I could imagine,
> but of course you could make that first split any
> way you want.
SA: I'm saying metaphysics is tied and grounded to
reality, but if ones metaphysics finds reality to be
ever-changing, then the metaphysics may try to match
this change. The metaphysics will allow for change to
occur, and yet the metaphysics will not be discarded
due to the change for the metaphysics is able to 'go
with flow' of reality. Thus why I see metaphysics as
analogous and still grounded in the 'physics' aspect.
Could a metaphysics itself be changed, if reality
changes drastically enough for a new metaphysics to be
in need? Yes, and no. It would seem a good
metaphysics will involve and aspect of itself that if
correctly showing what reality is, then this
metaphysics will last. What seems to be rid of, in
time, is the clap-trap, all the build up around a
metaphysics. Again, though, I might be going too far
in explaining what a metaphysics does, when I believe
our focus, for now, is upon what is metaphysics. So,
to clarify what I mean by what might be a third
category, aside from the two you supplied, is a
metaphysics not found inside the tent, and not found
outside the tent, but a metaphysics that is the tent.
I'm sure we have much to clarify on our perspectives,
and I'm all for it. I'm not arguing against your two
categories. That's why I assert I notice a third
category.
SA previously:
> > So, why not simply notice the
> > tent moves? For you go on to say, "...some may do
> a better job than others explaining the fabric's
> > movements..." You could go on explaining the
> tents movements or live the tents movements and
thus,
> with the latter know the tents movements more
> intimately, don't you think?
Magnus:
> Sure, we could just live in the moment and be happy.
SA: This could be outcome of a metaphysics of the
tent moving, thus, the third category, but I don't
know if I'm ready to jump this far yet into defining
what a metaphysics does, which will be difficult I
admit due to how I see what a metaphysics is by the
one word I noted above the "partaking" aspect. Where
a metaphysics, as I see this third category, partakes
in the reality in question, such as the tents
movement.
Magnus:
> But that's just not who I
> am. To be me is to analyze everything, sometimes to
> absurdity.
SA: While one lives, one may analyze. I don't
discount this. This may be jumping ahead, though, as
I mention above. I'm also interested in the much
larger collaboration of others that participate in
this forum, as you are I'm sure, and thus, I don't
want to jump the discussion too far ahead. To have
many involved in a discussion, in this kind of forum,
takes more pausings and mulling overs to wait for
others to get their opportunity to have their say.
I'm pretty sure you'd agree with this.
Magnus:
> I do actually try
> your way sometimes, and sure, it's rewarding in its
> own ways. But afterwards, I
> always end up intellectualizing what I've
> experienced and try to analyze it as
> usual. That's why I always get back here, even if
> I'm away for long periods.
SA: I intellectualize, too, and thus, why I include a
third category in what you've already commented upon.
Thus, why I find myself coming back here, as well.
SA previously:
> > You also say, you "...can never really let go
> of the thought of finding out how the tent is
> *really* held up." Again, the way you phrase this,
limits
> you to 'tent supports', and what holds the
'support',
> and as Arlo frequently mentions paradoxes, I see
your
> > questioning, Magnus, seems to be a way to bring
> > paradox upon paradox, don't you think?
Magnus:
> Quite right! To assume that our reality is supported
> by an out-of-this-world
> metaphysics is just asking for trouble. So, as I
> wrote to Matt earlier, I'll try to avoid it.
SA: I don't know if this "out-of this-world"
metaphysics could be reinterpreted in a way that is
this world or not. Wouldn't it depend on your
orientation of where metaphysics is? This is what I
see being discussed thus far. What metaphysics is,
and where it is located. You and I seemed to be
getting into what metaphysics does, but I don't know
if were at this point or not in the wider discussion
with others on the forum.
SA previously:
> > I don't know what your trying to get at, please
> > clarify.
Magnus:
> I hope I did, at least some. Or perhaps I just
> confused it even more. :-P
SA: This did help clarify what you meant. I brought
up some more comments and questions. I'm enjoying
this.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
