[MD] Intellectual Discussion and Dialectic - Finding agreement, Quality and beauty in the world.

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:47 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> When two people discuss a concept intellectually - naturally there will be
> disagreement.  What do we do then?
>

Dan:
Well, if there is not a disagreement, then why have the discussion at all?
I mean, if both participants agree, is there any reason to go on talking?
Nice day. Sure is.


>
> In the two and a half thousand years since Socrates and the Ancient Greeks
> what two people aim for has been the truth. Disagreement has immediately
> implied that what one person thinks is false and therefore wrong, while
> what the other person thinks is true and therefore right.  The way to
> determine this right and what has been to *logically* argue about what is
> true and what is false.  Each participant in this dialectical discussion -
> using the rules of logic - determines the truth by watching for things like
> contradiction and consistency from their interlocutor.   If someone is
> inconsistent, or shows contradiction, then what they are saying is false
> and thus the person demonstrating the contradiction is right.  Quality and
> Values and Morality in these discussions are unimportant.  Truth and
> logical consistency is the focus, not Quality or Values or Morality.
>
> But of course - this isn't how things are.  Quality, Values and Morality
> do exist and *are* very important.  Values actually *create* our ideas and
> opinions.  And so if we are to ever reach agreement, we will not find it
> simply with the aid of logical consistency (although it helps).  If we only
> keep our eyes on logical consistency we will be forever stuck in muddy
> water at the bottom of a waterfall - not in the clean water at the top.
> Unless we explain, beautifully, the values, the morals which form the
> quality of our opinions we won't get anywhere but be stuck with a bunch of
> meaningless, valueless, truths.
>

Dan:
Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to be falling into a bit of
redundancy here and that redundancy is leading you astray. Remember, ideas
are patterns of value. Morals and quality are synonymous in the MOQ. I
doubt anyone here only keeps an eye on logical consistency. But if a
contributor consistently contradicts themselves it points to a lack of
quality.



>
> Why does Marsha value the idea that static things change?  Why does dmb
> value the opposite?  Until an open discussion about these values occurs -
> nothing will change.
>

Dan:
Well, it seems (to me) that only Marsha and only dmb can answer those
questions. So, what is there to discuss? Are you saying they should begin
talking to themselves?


>
> But this is true not just of their discussion but of all discussions  -
> everywhere.  Why do people value the things that they do? Why do some
> people call one thing moral, while another group call something else moral?
>  Of course, in these discussions there will be disagreement.  But unless
> there is an openness to this disagreement, and openness to see something
> better, an openness to even try the values of another, an openness to be
> honest with yourself about your own values - then things *will* stay the
> same and not get any better.
>

Dan:
Well, you seem to be agreeing with me here. If we have to be open with
ourselves, what is there to discuss? I am unsure you fully realize what
you're saying here. A discussion is a consideration of a question by a
group. What you seem to be advocating is an introspection, not a
discussion. Is that right?


Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com