Steve and DMB: DMB: > > Huh? How can you deny that the correspondence theory of truth does not > > answer the question of truth? That theory says our ideas are true when > > they correspond to objective reality. That is its answer to the question > > of truth.
Steve: > That's not quite what I meant. I mean that the correspondence theory > of truth was not pursued, created, or reflected upon as an answer to > YOUR question of truth (what is true?). It was always an answer to > different Philosophically deep questions of truth such as... You two are real academical caricatures and try your best to preserve what the MOQ was meant to abolish. It (the MOQ) says that the 4th. intellectual level was the introduction of TRUTH, or the Truth/Appearance dualism and ever since the intellect-centered Western (SOM) culture has been hunting for the objective (true) representation of reality. As alleged moqist you ought to know that intellect is a static level, and thus its S/O master-pattern is incomplete; one can pursue them individually to kingdom come without success, still you keep up the tradition. I mean not only will the search for truth frustrate us, the assertion that there is no truth will prove futile too, and as far as I have understood Rorty he is a subjectivist - or Sophist - and I guess Matt's original Rorty embrace were due to him believing that the MOQ is a subjectivism movement, and now Steve walks into the same blind alley. DMB rejection of Rorty is praiseworthy, but if his rejection is from the MOQ position as the meta-level that sees the DQ/SQ context I doubt. His is the faulty notion that the MOQ is a subjective static intellectual pattern that reflects an objective Quality and this is just as un-moqish as the former. Bodvar 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/md/archives.html
