Excellent David, This reinforces my point about understanding argumentation intent - the "why". If all we have is dialectic - as you say - two parties each defending their own and critically attacking their "opponents" position - we can look forward to another 2000 years of SOMist disagreement.
Where you say dialectic - I mentioned "since Aristotle" - I was thinking syllogistic logic, logical relations between objects, some of which are subjects - this kind of "objective logic" is what I am railing against when I say we'll get nowhere with MoQism if we limit our intellect to "only this kind of logic". Thanks for articulating. Ironically I think we're all "violently agreeing" on that point - but FAILING to change our behaviour in the discussions having agreed to it. Ian On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:50 AM, David Harding <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi All, > > When two people discuss a concept intellectually - naturally there will be > disagreement. What do we do then? > > In the two and a half thousand years since Socrates and the Ancient Greeks > what two people aim for has been the truth. Disagreement has immediately > implied that what one person thinks is false and therefore wrong, while > what the other person thinks is true and therefore right. The way to > determine this right and wrong has been to *logically* argue about what is > true and what is false. Each participant in this dialectical discussion - > using the rules of logic - determines the truth by watching for things like > contradiction and consistency from their interlocutor. If someone is > inconsistent, or shows contradiction, then what they are saying is false > and thus the person demonstrating the contradiction is right. Quality and > Values and Morality in these discussions are unimportant. Truth and > logical consistency is the focus, not Quality or Values or Morality. > > But of course - this isn't how things are. Quality, Values and Morality > do exist and *are* very important. Values actually *create* our ideas and > opinions. And so if we are to ever reach agreement, we will not find it > simply with the aid of logical consistency (although it helps). If we only > keep our eyes on logical consistency we will be forever stuck in muddy > water at the bottom of a waterfall - not in the clean water at the top. > Unless we explain, beautifully, the values, the morals which form the > quality of our opinions we won't get anywhere but be stuck with a bunch of > meaningless, valueless, truths. > > Why does Marsha value the idea that static things change? Why does dmb > value the opposite? Until an open discussion about these values occurs - > nothing will change. > > But this is true not just of their discussion but of all discussions - > everywhere. Why do people value the things that they do? Why do some > people call one thing moral, while another group call something else moral? > Of course, in these discussions there will be disagreement. But unless > there is an openness to this disagreement, and openness to see something > better, an openness to even try the values of another, an openness to be > honest with yourself about your own values - then things *will* stay the > same and not get any better. > > Thanks, > > -David. > 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 > 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
