Hi Ian, It's good to articulate our values and explain why we think they are good.. If we don't - we aren't going to change anyone's mind - and nothing will change. We live in a culture where values are rarely talked about or questioned openly. It's almost taboo. Many people are scared of confrontation or openly questioning their values for fear of offending or appearing culturally insensitive. But I think the MOQ helps us here as it provides us a language where we can talk about values and morality without resorting to a bunch of culturally relative truths.
-David. On 25/04/2013, at 5:42 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
