[MD] Static latching & faith

[Scott Roberts]

Joe,

Joe said:
IMO language games require rules. I do not think that Wikipedia is a good
umpire. For mathematics, and the physical sciences Gravity has been a better
umpire.

Scott:
? What does gravity have to do with mathematics? In any case, I see 
philosophy as a matter of arguing over umpires, which is to say that nothing 
is a priori a good or bad umpire.

Joe said:
IMO at one point you chose L of CI (Logic of Contradictory Identity) as an
umpire. IMO one fork of that trident was empirical. If only one fork of the
MOQ is empirical, can the whole MOQ be called empirical by analogy, if a
trident is a real umpire? If the Metaphysics of DQ/SQ, where SQ is
apprehended mystically, implies that the mystical component is material,
then IMO the MOQ is empirical, and a good umpire.  To hold the mystical
apart from the material, hinders evolution.

Scott:
I choose the LCI as a way to keep from falling off the Middle Way. That is 
an umpire of sorts, I suppose. Mainly, though, it is warning about fixating 
on understandable umpires. In any case, I think your concerns are irrelevant 
to the question. We have no great difficulty in distinguishing empirical 
theories from non-empirical ones if we stick to the traditional meaning of 
'empirical'. But look at what you have just written. Mystical? material? 
Holding them apart? Or not? When have we done one or the other? What does it 
mean to "apprehend mystically"? And so forth. All these have to be 
understood before we can even get to the "is it empirical" question.

Evolution is hindered if one does that which Wilber (and most of us here) 
considers a crime: to ignore the transcendental. Calling the transcendental 
the empirical just adds a red herring.

- Scott