Matt:
Yeah...I don't think I like putting the point as "mythos
becoming literal": it doesn't sound very useful to me.
The literal/metaphorical distinction doesn't seem to be
put to good use here. I function fine with a literal rock,
and seeing it as a rock is part of the mythos. The
problem isn't with literal truths, which are just
non-ambiguous sentences (no matter that we cannot
fully eliminate ambiguity from any particular sentence),
the problem is with the idea that the ideas the sentences
express are unalterable, or a certain class of them are
(God's Ideas, Nature's Ideas, Logic's Ideas, whatever).
For instance, you're on the right trail about the Greek
creators of our axioms--arche, the Greek word typically
translated as "first principle," can also be translated in
less elevated language as "beginning" or "starting point."
I don't think the problem is easily stated as that we began
to understand arche more literally--what's a metaphorical
starting point, when I literally started with the principle I
stated--but rather that these starting points were taken to
be written in the stars, limning reality.
Ron:
A fine point, and one I would agree with, to those that understand
this principle it would seem great difficulty arises in meaning as
it pertains to having common discussions regarding these matters,
having to take great care as to not allow recursivness in meaning.
It becomes tedious.
Is it evil to attepmt to render meaning from meaningless?
or more to take that rendering as absolute?
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/
