[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
I think you miss Arlo's suggestion ? ... belief is intellectual, social is 
action.

dmb says:
I didn't missed Arlo's suggestion. I explicitly rejected it.

Ian said to dmb:
You also said "I'd argue that there are beliefs based on tradition and faith 
and then there are intelllectual assertions."  ..Look DMB, it's like you are 
deliberately missing the point being made. What you are saying is true, but 
it doesn't seem to provide a definitive basis for deciding which kind of 
truth we're dealing with at any given point.

dmb says:
Well, the part you quoted was supposed to be the definitive basis of 
anything. As I have said repeatedly, the basis I'm suggesting is the 
principle of oppostion. But I wouldn't claim that it's definitive. Its just 
a basic starting point, a general idea, a principle. And one you've ignored 
again for some reason. Also, I really don't know what point you think I'm 
"deliberately missing" here.

Ian continued:
...Even intellectual assertions are based on premises already believed, not 
every intellectual assertion is made a priori, from the ground up is it ? At 
the point of making that new assertion, you cannot unpick the entire history 
of ideas up to that point to ensure all the premises are believed because 
they too were "intellectual". "Social" activities are involved in ideas 
right up to the point where they are used as the basis of a new assertion. I 
know I must be missing something, that I'd hoped the MoQ would clarify, but 
if it's there, I'm not seeing it.

dmb says:
What the heck are you talking about? A priori from the ground up? You seem 
to be making a case against the possibility of absolute truth or of finding 
the foundations of objective reality. But who said anything about that? I'm 
quite sure that I didn't. I don't even see what this has to do with the 
distinction in question. Who said intellectual values had to justifed by 
"the entire history of ideas"? Jeez, its no wonder you don't see it. There 
is no such thing as this. Santa Claus is far more plausible than the kind of 
perfection you suggest here.

Ian said:
I say obviously,(the MOQ is supposed to clarify) but it seems in need of 
clearer stating, if we're
going to communicate it. ...Be nice to follow this up point by point, and 
see where we get.

dmb says:
You've ignored the only point I have. And you made it impossible for me to 
understand what point you think I've missed. Seems to me that you're not in 
a position to be complaining about how others communicate. Its can be 
justified with lots of details, but again, the principle of opposition, as 
I've been calling it, is what I've tried to communicate. That's the point 
you've missed.

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail