Hello everyone On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:47 PM, David Harding <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi All, > > When two people discuss a concept intellectually - naturally there will be > disagreement. What do we do then? > Dan: Well, if there is not a disagreement, then why have the discussion at all? I mean, if both participants agree, is there any reason to go on talking? Nice day. Sure is. > > 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 what 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. > Dan: Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to be falling into a bit of redundancy here and that redundancy is leading you astray. Remember, ideas are patterns of value. Morals and quality are synonymous in the MOQ. I doubt anyone here only keeps an eye on logical consistency. But if a contributor consistently contradicts themselves it points to a lack of quality. > > 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. > Dan: Well, it seems (to me) that only Marsha and only dmb can answer those questions. So, what is there to discuss? Are you saying they should begin talking to themselves? > > 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. > Dan: Well, you seem to be agreeing with me here. If we have to be open with ourselves, what is there to discuss? I am unsure you fully realize what you're saying here. A discussion is a consideration of a question by a group. What you seem to be advocating is an introspection, not a discussion. Is that right? Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
