Hi Dan, > David wrote originally: > When two people discuss a concept intellectually - naturally there will be > disagreement. What do we do then? >
> Dan responded: > 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. David responds: As I wrote originally - disagreement is a very *natural* thing. What we do after we disagree - that's what I'm openly discussing here.. > > 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. David responds: I agree here. But why is there a lack of quality? Why does a contributor, in your eyes, consistently contradict themselves? That's what I'm pointing towards. Everyone has different values. So at some time or another - no matter who you discuss anything with you will at some stage come upon a disagreement. They value something which you don't which causes them to deem their words with coherence, and you the opposite. It can feel uncomfortable to discuss these values, these morals openly. It can be difficult. But until we openly discuss them - and through that discussion we care for the values of others - we try and understand the values of others - and we explain our own values - then nothing will change - that's my point. > > 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? > > Dan wrote also along the same lines: > 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? > David responds: No. I am advocating both. An open discussion between two people which includes introspection is the best kind. If your values are better than mine - why is that? Or are there other values which are better? Why do you have the values which you do? Why do you deem them of value? We live in a society today where people are almost frightened of openly discussing their values and morals for fear of offending or appearing insensitive. But the values/morals of the participants in a discussion are not irrelevant and to be actively avoided (as is traditionally thought) - but are the *most* important part of a philosophical discussion. 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
