Hi Platt, almost missed that response .... Did you say "excellent", did you say "wisdom" ? I may have to do a reality check before I risk further comment ;-) .... but here goes nothing. Two observations on your aparent agreement.
"lubricate social interactions" - I'd subscribe to that view. In fact it's one of my objections to some of the more fruitless debates I've had with you in the past - you have appeared to believed we were having some logical proof / disproof kind of argument complete with an arsenal of winning rhetorical tactics. 99% of "debate" is / should concern mutual learning and understanding - social interaction / conversation - there are few hard conclusions to be had, and few arguments worth "winning" IMHO. But, I would not accept your conclusion though. The caveat / contingency "I could be wrong" is a given in absolutely every human statement (even this one) - once you're actually having a conversation - it is (almost) a waste of breath to keep saying it. I'd say what really matters is the basis on which you believe what you do believe - it's a given that all belief is contingent. "I could be wrong" is not a result or an outcome, but a premise. I prefer a forward looking "conversation" from where it has got to, not from where it started. (Yes, I am that Irishman). Regards Ian On 4/22/08, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SA, Platt, Bo, > > > > I'd also be tempted to disagree with Bob's simple statement to Baggini > > - at least with the suggestion that it is the whole story. > > > > Bo's point, quoting SA, does not feel like a breakthrough to me. > > Clearly the DQ aspect of the MoQ is not defined within it, because > > it's not really "defined" anywhere ... it's the ineffable basis any > > metaphysics must have - in the MoQ case a dynamic basis for its own > > future. > > Excellent. There isn't a logical metaphysics anywhere or any kind that > doesn't have an "ineffable" basis, if for no other reason than Godel's > Theorem. > > > So Bob saying that the MOQ "is" the levels of static patterns > > it describes, is not inconsistent with saying that it is described as > > an intellectual pattern / on the intellectual level. (As you know I've > > never had any problem with the MoQ including its own definition - of > > all the levels - on one level. It's a strange loop that allows it to > > evolve from its original historical perspective.) > > I would venture to guess that accepting strange loops, infinite regress, > Godel's Theorem and the Uncertainly Principle as inherent limits to > knowledge is a sign of wisdom. At least it would save a lot of bitterness > and lubricate social interactions if everyone would recognize such limits > and admit once in awhile, "Of course, I could be wrong." > > Platt > > > 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/ > 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/
