Hi SA
Sorry about the delay, I've spent a few days setting up a new mail
server and I'm just starting to get the upper hand, let's see how this
goes...
> 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.
For me, metaphysics has nothing to do with human perspective. Not even
sure the anthronaturmorphic perspective can change that. On the other
hand, I'm not sure I completely understood that term.
> 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.
Hmm, yes, I guess that may constitute a third category. But it may also
fall in the "inside" category since it's not really outside.
Regarding a changing/adapting metaphysics, I guess you're talking about
our model of the metaphysics. I can't imagine a metaphysics, governing
the physical laws of our universe, to change.
It's another thing if we build a new LHC particle collider, start it up
and discover lots of "new" particles and behavior. We may then feel the
need to change our metaphysics model to make it compatible with these
new findings. But the real metaphysics has always been that way, we just
haven't discovered that aspect of it until we did.
Magnus
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/
