[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?) - side question forPlatt and Arlo

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt -- 

> I'm still confused about the difference between metaphorical
> and literal. I take it both are "real" but that metaphors perhaps
> leave more room for interpretation than literal words?
> Or, are all words metaphors with some being more abstract
> or removed from pre-intellectual perception than others?
> My source for my understanding of semantics is an old
> college textbook entitled, "Language in Thought and Action"
> by S.I. Hayakawa. Any comments would be appreciated.

I haven't read Hayakawa.  But the premise that Arlo and Case have taken is
that no matter how we define or describe a concept, it is a "word symbol"
that can only be compared with other word symbols.  Their philosophy is that
any belief system is necessarily symbolic and has no fundamental basis in
reality.  Since the only reality we can "know" is the experienced world,
belief is a sham -- an "experimental enterprise":

[Arlo]:
> Metaphysics, as Dewey and Pirsig see it, is an experimental
> enterprise.  The concepts and other instrumentalities it
> utilizes are in no sense ontologically superior to the "gross,
> macroscopic, crude" things of primary experience. They are
> artifacts of inquiry, fashioned within a specific context of
> available means and valued ends, just like other human tools.

The upshot is that these are people who have no beliefs.  They are nihilists
in the fullest sense of the word.  They "get their kicks" by reducing
statements offered by the rest of us to meaningless abstractions.  When I
asked Arlo what pleasure or contentment he gets from being a nihilist, he
replied:

> I dunno. Annoying those who think they have articulated
> The One True Philosophy.

This nihilistic attitude extends to the MoQ, as well ...

[Ham to Ron]:
> Arlo insists that my Essence is a metaphor, and perhaps it is.
> But it's no more metaphoric than Pirsig's Quality.

[Arlo interjects]:
> Arlo would never say otherwise.

I don't know if you have the patience to deal with nihilists, but I see no
point in discussing ontology or metaphysics with individuals who deny the
value of a philosophical concept.  I told Arlo to get back to me "when you
believe in something."

Maybe you'll have better luck.

Regards,
Ham