[MD] Annotations to LC

[david]

________________________________
From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:30 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Annotations to LC

Tukka said"

According to Pirsig, the MOQ is logically consistent. This meanshttp://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/result in an inconsistency,
since if A precedes B then B doesn't precede A.


dmb says:

You think you've discovered a logical inconsistency here and the rest of your heinous critique is predicated on that starting point. But that's where you go wrong; right from that starting point. The claims of materialism cannot be reconciled with the claims of idealism are mutually exclusive so that you can only have one or the other but that is only true WITHIN the SOM framework on which they are both based. The MOQ begins by rejecting that framework, by rejecting SOM and the theory of truth that it entails. In the MOQ, as I've already explained, materialism and idealism are both wrong because of premise they share is wrong. Neither one of them is right because mind and matter are just concepts not the starting point of reality. The mistake that they both make is to treat these concepts as if they were the ontological structure of reality. That is a conceptual error (reification) and the MOQ rejects it. In the MOQ, mind and matter are conceptual categories that are useful for thinking about experience and the MOQ can include both of them without contradiction.

Also, as I've already explained, the MOQ subscribes to the Pragmatic theory of truth and under that theory truth is provisional rather than eternal and truth is plural rather than singular. The art gallery analogy, wherein many visions and many versions of the truth can exist side by side even though they might make very different claims, is a pretty good picture of this kind of Pragmatic pluralism.

You're putting way too much way emphasis on the logic and way too little emphasis on understanding the concepts involved. Logical rigor is not going to help anyone who is operating with a series of misconceptions.




Tuukka asked:

Aren't these Kant's things noumena, not objective patterns? ...I don't understand what would make noumena objective.



dmb says:

Yes, I know. It seems quite clear to me that you don't understand the philosophical concepts involved. That's what I've been saying. Short answer, the noumenal realm is "objective" because it is held to be reality as it really is (reality in itself) regardless of anyone's opinion or anyone's perception. That's what Pragmatism and the MOQ reject, the idea that reality exists apart from anyone's perception or interpretation. In the MOQ, so-called material reality is a concept invented by humans for human purposes and it has everything to do with our perceptions and opinions. It is a product of thought, not the pre-existing reality that allows us to think.

Logic is a great tool for checking the validity of arguments and claims but you ought to put that tool down for a while and take some time to familiarize yourself with the concepts first. When that's sorted out, then maybe logic would be useful in sorting out the relations between the concepts. Until then, you're just swinging your fists in the dark, so to speak.






<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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
MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
moq.org
Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms allow