[Craig] And the same could be said of what's false--it is relative to context.
[Arlo] Of course. That's a point of the MOQ. There is not "True" or "False" in any absolutist, objectivist sense. It's all a matter of what works, of what is valued, of what is useful, in a given context. [Arlo] But what distinguishes true from false? [Arlo] If we agree to the same axioms, then between us "true" and "false" simply means "adheres to our shared axioms" or "does not adhere to our shared axioms". If we don't agree to the same axioms, then there is nothing to distinguish 'true' from 'false', there is only a clash of axioms. [Craig] What about the attraction of iron filings to a magnet? Do they find that useful? [Arlo] "Instead of saying "A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it," you can say "Iron filings value movement toward a magnet." (LILA) "The chemistry of life is the chemistry of carbon. What distinguishes all the species of plants and animals is, in the final analysis, differences in the way carbon atoms choose to bond." (LILA) So, yes, I'd say iron filings find it useful (they value) moving towards a magnet, exactly as Pirsig suggests. [Arlo previously] if you ask 'are they married?' in any of these cases, which would you say is the 'true' answer? [Craig] They all are. [Arlo] Exactly. There is no one "true" answer that "trumps" other context, other axiomatic systems. Within each, "married" is a term of shared usefulness, and within each will be affirmed or denied based on adherence to whatever shared axioms those in that context have found useful for them. In any event, there is not "true" condition of being married that is not derived from shared usefulness or convention. [Craig] Whether you call each of them 'true', 'True', 'objectively true' or 'absolutely true', it means the same to me. [Arlo] Objectively or absolutely suggest a 'trueness' unbound by shared usefulness. If you're seeking to adopt a definition of these terms that mean the opposite of what they do in our shared language, then you're going to have a difficult time making a coherent point. [Craig] To be skilled, your success must come in the right way--not by accident or luck. [Arlo] If that's how you find "skillful" to be useful in meaning, and that's the shared agreement in culture to that term, that you statement is simply a statement of what that shared useage is. I could say "to be great, your success must derive only from charity", but if you disagree, you're not going to accept my statement are you? There is no "true" condition of "skilled" or "greatness", there is only shared agreement on what those terms mean. And, whatever our shared agreement as to "skilled" may be, it is provisional; useful until something better comes along. 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
