[MD] The hard question.

[118]

Hi Ron,
You present a good point.  I have a comment below.

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:01 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting to note how this discussion is progressing as relating to an old philosophical question.
> The question of the "better" use of rhetoric.
>
>  There is the style of the Sophist one who reportedly argues very much like Marsha argues,
> frequently employing what is now reffered to as the "red Herring" or the  "Chewbacca defense" .
> Ignoratio elenchi.
>
> Then the style of the philosopher. Much like Daves style who employ more of a Pragmatic approach
> that in broad general sense states that all fallacy is a form of Ignoratio elenchi.
>
> Which seems like an odd charge against the Sophist who rests apon elanchus as supporting
> their notion of the true as being ta endoxa (opinion). But I guess what is being leveled at the Sophist
> is that they come at this conclusion without any refutation while the Philosopher asks what are our
> opinions is based in? What are our reasons for our beliefs?

Yes, I believe this is central.  Once Truth is abandoned in favor of
Quality, we are approaching philosophical discussions in terms of
persuasion.  There is no firm ground to stand once this shift is made,
which Pirsig describes eloquently in ZAMM when he is left sitting on
the ground in his own excrement.  A new manner for establishing a
reality is required from the worn Western methods.  Personally, I
think this shift in emphasis is a good thing, although it is
difficult. The art of rhetoric can rise to a discipline of importance,
not residing as some sub-discipline.

A well written paragraph can trump established truth, if done
correctly.  It would seem that MoQ is doing battle with established
truths and trying to create a paradigm shift rather than simply branch
off from established paradigms.  This can indeed be messy, since it
becomes difficult to convince somebody that the manner in which they
have always seen things could possibly be changed drastically.

Any philosophy requires agreement to progress.  The manner is which
such agreement is reached can be different.  In science one accepts
certain "truths" and works off of those.  There is a feedback system
in which such truths are abandoned. There does not seem to be a
problem with this method, except that it is slow and deliberate.
Science explains the "manner of being" (metaphysics) in this way.
However, it can only deal with the measurable, and is therefore
insufficient (which is why the "meta- portion is removed).  For
indeed, we are discussing the physics of physics.  As such, the
physics itself is not important.

Once the truths of physics are irrelevant and we move to the next
stage, it becomes difficult to use established truths as fundamentals
for this stage, for they too are irrelevant.  The Truth about Truth
could have nothing to do with truth as we know it, for we are
operating outside of truth.  This can be considered as a spiritual
rationality, where standard rationality does not apply.  It is a
difficult transition to make, because if done suddenly, one can end up
on a floor letting cigarettes burn one's fingers and become completely
useless.

The shift is one of awareness, and cannot be logically arrived at.
One strategy is to mix a variety of methods together such that the
result is much greater than the sum of such methods.  This is
synergism, and can be exemplified by the mixing iron with carbon to
form steel.  It is not intuitively obvious that such mixing will
result in a very strong metal and something unexpected happens.  The
same can be said for a paradigm shift in the perception of reality.
To switch the West to MoQ has no direct path, and often the pragmatic
can leave one stranded.  Often it is more direct to simply accept the
tenants of MoQ as irrefutable, and then see how things fall into
place.  Once there, one can work on it from the inside.

Mark
>
>
>
> ..
> 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