Hey Dan,
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > Dan: > If you want to break up the question into two parts, great. Let's > consider it from the social vs intellectual levels. But to conflate > the individual with the intellect is a mistake, at least according to > the MOQ. We as individuals are made up of all four levels, not only > intellect. > > Jc: I'm glad you pointed this out. It's been the subject of some thought and I'd appreciate your input. The way Pirsig said it was, I believe, that individuals react to DQ where committees, don't. evolutionary jumps are made at the individual level first, one person at a time. If so, then the individual vs social conflict, is often also, an intellectual vs. social conflict, no? So I agree you can't completely conflate the intellect-individual, but you can relate them. Dan: > Now, to the many different answers... sure, that's quite possible. Yet > you seem to be suggesting all answers are somehow equal. I disagree. > Jc: Call it, scientific objectivity, used as a tool. All answers are not equal, but if we treat them equally at the start, then hopefully we will have a "more objective" answer. Dan: > Some are better than others. Just because we each have differing > personal histories doesn't necessarily place us on equal footing so fa > as intellectualizing goes. I'm sure you'll agree. > > Jc:) > > >JC: > > But on the societal level - where mass-information-control is what keeps > > the industrial wheels turning, you've got to have some common myths. > > Re-ligere is "re-tying" Human communities have always been tied to their > > myths. I think you can replace an old and dying myth, with a brand new > one > > - but what you can't do, is throw out the old and offer NOTHING in its > > place (sorry Marsha) And I think its that very nihilism which creates the > > dogmatic reactions that Baggini is describing in his article. > > Dan: > I'd say social media is a two-edged sword. Sure, it can result in > rigid dogmatic control. But at the same time, social media is a great > tool to free the bonds holding us in place. Jc: I agree completely. Dan: > Those so-called common > myths are debunked with regularity. Nothing is sacred. Jc: I see that as problematic. "Nothing is sacred" comes down to the Nihilism that Baggini describes! It doesn't have to, maybe, but it does in the way it actually works out. Where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. Dan: > Simultaneously, > social media can result in ever greater recruitment into religious > cults and political followings that heretofore were simply blips under > the radar. > > Jc: Or recruit for ISIL. sure. Dan: Now, as far as throwing out the old and offering nothing new... isn't > offering up something new exactly what we are actively engaged in > here at moq.org? I always thought so. The problem arises when we > refuse to let go of that which we've grown so fond of... our > overriding belief system that grounds us in reality. The closer we > come to jumping over the edge, the more tightly we tend to hold on. > > Jc: I can't see jumpoing off into nothingness, as any sort of attraction. Old ways wear out, and need to be dropped. But I can only let go of the old if I see a better alternative to latch onto. Knowing that the new betterness is also a latch that will some day get old, is important. But all we can do here an now is take one step at a time - and climb, rather than jump off. > >JC: > > So I ask again, is it pragmatic to mythologize an absolute? Absolute, > not > > in the mathematical sense of logically pristine but in the manner of a > > rhetorical question - searching for intersubjective agreement that we > > attain when we deem something "objectively true". Marx famously quoted > > religion as the opiate of the masses. But so what? Evidently, people > need > > their drugs, in order to cope with the madness of 21st century life. If > > you think its wise to deprive them, explain why. > > Dan: > I just happened to read an article about the Duggars and their problem > with son Josh. Seems the boy was overly fond of his sisters. Naughty > little bugger. Gee. Wonder where he got that from, dad? These people > hide behind their religion like it's a shield. And this isn't some > isolated incident. It occurs with regularity among the so-called > religious communities. But hey, those poor people need their drug so > it's okay. Is that what you really mean to say, John? > > Jc: Basically that. The coinciding of religion and popular entertainment is a two-headed beast that nothing can resist. And as to the hidden degeneracy of the beast, you ain't telling me nothing. I grew up in a religious community (albeit as a sort of outsider) I'm a first hand witness to the evil that dogmatic attachment does to men's souls. I shudder. But I'm, like Royce, fascinated by the spirit of community and you have to hang around something if you want to study it. > Jc: It's a convenient epithet for person uncomfortable with mountain > > climbing. > > Dan: > There is an old metaphysical question floating around that asks: If a > tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? > Most philosophical answers argue either yes or no. The MOQ asks: what > tree? How can imaginary trees fall in imaginary forests or in fact do > anything at all? Jc: The conceptual scheme implies an actual tree, in an actual forest, with a non-actual witness. It raises the whole question of "actuality" in a way that ties SOMist up in knots. That's what it was made for. > I think that's where pragmatism comes into play. And > I am pretty sure that's what David is talking about when he states > that pragmatism is meant to distinguish real questions from imaginary > ones. > > Jc: Distinguishing what is real from what is imaginary is a bit of a sticky wicket, that dmb thinks he can dodge by not answering. In other words, taking the Jamesian route. But philosophy deals with conceptual schemes that have "reality" even though they are simply ideas and words. In other words, the MoQ addresses the fact that intellectual patterns are just as real in their realms, as rocks are in theirs. So how can dmb possibly accuse any philosophical question as being unreal? I don't know, but he does. He's magic, he is. > Dan: > In my opinion, most of the anti-scientific vs scientific debates > centering around evolution, global warming, religion, and so forth, > arise not because people are stupid, but because they've been > indoctrinated into believing in the myth of the absolute. Jc: Hm.. yes, well... I've been reading a bit more. It's a tricky term "absolute". what you mean by it is probably a long way from what I've been reading in Royce. >From what I see, for the most part, Royce agrees with you there. And he goes along for a while with what he calls Instrumentalism. But he stops at the extreme view which says there is no absolute. He uses logic and math to demonstrate the existence of absolute truths in the sense that "within the given system" equations can be absolutely true. And this "absoluteness" then, demonstrates the possibility and experience of what we mean by the term. People on a mass social scale, have a tendency to absolutize. This is because absolutization is extremely expedient. Absolutization is the enforcement of the standard upon all. Absolutization is the rule of conformity to the social needs of economically significant industrialism. That's how we get large populations all on the same page - in a form of inculcating of centrally-defined values. The religious-industrial complex in an ongoing conflict with pluralism and hedonism. Dan: It's > especially pervasive in Western culture. Much of what Robert Pirsig > says about subject/object metaphysics falls into that category. > Subjects and objects are all there is. Absolute. Period. > > It works well. Jc: Yes indeed. Exactly my point. Pragmatic then? Dan: > The English language is grounded in that myth, as is > our court of laws, our educational system, just about everything we > think, see, hear, and feel relates to the absolute-ness of objective > agreement. And you are right, John. To try and argue one's way out of > that box is virtually impossible. There is always someone who can come > along and use our words against us... just like you are doing here. > But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and surrender. > > Jc: Well, I'd rather think we are using our words together, in seeking a common goal of better communication about betterness. Some of that is going to be analytic and critical, sure. But I don't know that it's "against". And which "us" are you referring to, white man? > > > > dmb: > > > > For James, we can decide what to believe based on our passions, our > >> feelings, but only in very special circumstances, when a decision must > be > >> made but cannot be decided on the basis of evidence. This ethical > dimension > >> of belief is almost universally recognized; math and logic guys like > >> Bertrand Russell agree with Buddha and the Dali Lama that it is > unethical > >> or even taboo to believe without evidence. > >> > >> > >> And that's why it totally matters whether there is any absolute truth or > >> not, why we can not just believe it because we have a thirst and wish it > >> were true. > > > > > > > > Jc: But the thirst and wish themselves, are what we experience - are the > > absolute that we hold in common that creates our conceptual schemes. > Sure, > > intuition and passion and feeling all go into that. > > Dan: > The thirst and the wish for the absolute are force fed to us from the > time we're born. Experience goes beyond that. > > Jc: Well, that's not absolutely true. For instance I had very free-thinking parents who basically followed their bliss and let me do the same. I don't recommend it as the perfect parenting style, but oh well, we're all different. I certainly had no idea about any absolute imposed upon me. I was exposed to what different religions had to say about the subject, but I came to the conclusion that if there is any absolute then it's this - choice. If it wasn't for the ability to choose, there would be no reason or rationality or language or anything to talk about. So choice is absolute and it makes good pragmatic sense to absolutize choice and call it "Quality" Otherwise I guess I wouldn't even be here. Dan: > Oh come on, John. Let's go have a few and see if we can't pick us up > some blonde bimbos. > > prefer redheads, myself. I am a picky man, when it comes to my women and my metaphysics. I'm fairly plebian on my liquor, tho. JC 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
