[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[118]

Hi dmb,

I agree with what you post.  From what I read of Steve's quotes, Rorty
is pointing towards the question of nature v nurture.  If I am reading
it correctly, Steve is supporting the solitary side of nurture.  He
also points to a "we" that is creating the experience.  This becomes a
circular paradox of what that "we" is.  That is an intrinsic director
which controls.  It is difficult to find such a thing, perhaps there
is a solitary neuron or group of neurons that we are, but I doubt it.
As a whole, the brain/body interacts with the environment.  It has
intrinsic direction which could be postulated to arise from genetic
memory, this direction is the sculpted through demands and experience.
 Our will or Intent provides the driving force, which is Quality.

A tree will become a tree from seed.  How that tree expresses itself
depends on the soil, sun, rocks, weather, etc.  As humans we have a
propensity for being human, exactly how that is expressed is a balance
between nature and nurture.  Some were destined to be male, others
female for example.  In terms of our actual control over the process,
I doubt there is much.  We cannot put things in there since the "we"
disappears on analysis.  The best we can do is not fight it, and
encourage it if we are aware of it.  Since this is too highly complex
for our simple intellect, we choose the big decisions as guides.  In
such endeavors, the consideration should be one of quality.  We wait
for the wave and then ride it the best we can, then wait for the next
one.  Being aware of such dynamics allows us to be creative as we were
meant to be.  This is the middle way.

Cheers,
Mark

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:14 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve said:
> ... He [Rorty] is saying that reality doesn't hand us criteria. Where do you think criteria come from if they don't arise out of the course of human practices of inquiry?
>
> dmb says:
> Again, this is a false dilemma. Again, you say all standards of knowledge are conventional or such standards are simply handed to us by nature. Again, I'm saying those are not the only options.
>
> Steve said:
> Asking about the practical consequences is a great idea, but it is a practice that arose out of other human practices for inquiry rather than handed to us by nature. It is not basic in the sense of "given."
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Again, this is another reiteration of the same false dilemma. Again, you saying all standards of knowledge are conventional or they are simply handed to us by nature. Again, I'm saying those are not the only options. I'm not buying this all-or-nothingism any more than I buy the idea that one is either an absolutist or a relativist. In all these cases, I'm saying there are more than just two stark options. I'm saying that experience constrains our beliefs and that experience is not created by us.
>
> Is it safe to assume that you know what "false dilemma" means? Is there some reason to reject the idea of a middle way?James and Pirsig are all about the middle way. Pragmatism was invented as a middle way between empiricism and rationalism, ZAMM is all about fusing the romantic and the classic and Lila seeks to balance DQ and sq.
>
> My point? You're presenting a false dilemma. False means fake or untrue. Dilemma means two options. I think both options are objectionable and would not choose either of them.
>
>
>
> 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
>