Ok Marsha, Only a few points to clear up.
> > > > John: > > First, we both agree that rationality is not absolute. > > Marsha: > Rationality claims to be absolute: a thing cannot be both A and not-A. > > John: Ok, how does rationality make claims? I'd say rationality is a game with rules, that we decide to play where its appropriate. Rationality can't be both absolute and non-absolute, is just a basic premise of our discussion right now. > > > John: > > AND it doesn't get the last word, i.e. if something seems completely > > rationally plausible, but doesn't "feel' right, then we look deeper. > > Marsha: > I would wish to make this a habit of value. > > There's a sign at the school my son attends that I've been pondering lately. Watch your thoughts, they become words Watch your words, they become actions Watch your actions, they become habits Watch your habits, they become your character Watch your character, it becomes your destiny. Watch your destiny go down the drain. Ok, that last part I added myself. But it's kind of the way the whole poster makes me feel. > > > John: > > We examine the underlying issues that cause the bad feelings. > > Marsha: > It would be nice if so many of the causes were not out of our awareness. > > > > John: > > But we can't just stop with "it feels wrong" because relying upon > > feelings and intuitions alone would be as foolish as relying upon > > logic and rationality alone, correct? > > Marsha: > Incorrect. If a thing must never be both A and not-A, and that is > understood > as the final arbiter, well then things get really messed up. Surely that > is > obvious! > > John: Obvious to one person is mysterious to another. Built-in to every word we speak or think is ambiguity. Its out of ambiguity and paradox that meaning is constructed. > > > John: > > Neither can be complete in themselves. They must be in accord. > > They must dance together and not step on each other's toes. > > Do you not agree? > > Marsha: > I don't agree or disagree. Agreement based on faulty logic is > not always a worthy goal. > > John: This is where conversation gets frustrating. It seems you have a bias against mutual understanding. An aversion to "being taken". Ellul talks about this in his contrast between empirical reality, and conceptual truth. Truth is fixed and absolute but our grasp of it is always relative and nebulous. Reality is mysterious and shifting and unknowable but our grasp of it is concrete and obdurate. By what you say about rationality, I think you've got them mixed up somehow. And this is why you get charged with being a truth relativist. > > > > > John: > > Yes but my quest for understanding makes me wonder why. It drives me > > deeper into more questions. More digging. Intellectual probing is > utterly > > instinctual and a self-driving force. I can certainly stop pestering > with > > questions, but I can't stop (or don't wanna) asking why in my own mind. > > Marsha: > This makes you irresistibly attractive to me. This is personal, but no > matter how outlandish (The Son? Really!!!) the questions, even those > pesky theistic ones, because I am an introverted thinker, I find them > endlessly seductive. But the ABSOLUTE answer came to me a long > time ago: "There is no answer now, there never was an answer in the > past, and there never will be an answer in the future." Ah-men!!! > > Not A > Not -A > Not (A and -A) > Not (neither A nor -A) > > Not this, not that... > > Quality! Emptiness! Love! > > I do love to laugh... > > > ((( And damn to that pesky karma... ))) > Well I wouldn't want to be a slave to fear of karma, but I wouldn't want to ignore it completely either. I think a subtle interplay is called for, indeed. 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
