[MD] relative

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Joe,

> Joe said:
>
> I do not know what you mean by conventional truth in a university setting?
> DQ/SQ as metaphysical reality accepts that that we experience and know the
> indefinable and the definable.  If the uni accepts SOM only, indefinable DQ
> is not a teachable principle.  I do not know how you are distinguishing
> "conventional truth" and "metaphysical truth".
>
> Certainly in a course on mathematics they cannot appeal to evolution since
> they are not teaching metaphysics.  Mathematics is not a metaphysical
> discipline.  IMHO Logic has to embrace mathematics and metaphysics DQ/SQ in
> communication and learning.
>
>

Tuukka:
This sheds light on a pretty important point. SOM does not equal 
conventional truth. SOM, I believe, equals: "the philosophical 
equivalent of a finite-state machine, as opposed to a context-free 
language." Another way of saying it would be that SOM is determinism, 
but we want self-determinism. And the Uni need not to be bound to 
determinism, so there most certainly is work to be done in fighting SOM 
by providing better and completely viable alternatives such as the MOQ.

Metaphysical truths are conventional to me. I'm a conventional person on 
my own terms... really. I just bought a coat, and the text in the inside 
of the coat says: "For outdoor use by typical owners". I'm a typical 
metaphysicist, and even in my life there are unconventional things, and 
they are not something I put in a conceptual box which is labeled 
"metaphysics". Metaphysical truths can be conventional. If you say 
they're not, I'd go so far as to say the burden of proof rests on you, 
and hope that you will then explain what you mean.

I don't understand the last sentence. ...

-Tuukka