[FRIAM] OK. That's funny.

[jon zingale]

FWIW, I occasionally entertain the idea of a *Universal Grammar* for
belief[⍦].
The idea being that there may be some genetic component of the belief
faculty,
and that by analogy to universal grammar, one acquires competence in one's
own
beliefs through performance[⌂][◇]. At any moment, a person makes decisions
and
suffers the reality that they did or did not believe what they thought they
might. Here, I am defining belief more narrowly than most. For me, beliefs
are
necessarily discovered, and not the kind of thing one 'discovers' by
considering
hypotheticals. Alternatively, it feels wonderful to reject *-archies in
favor
of rhizomatic thought[⍼], à la, "A Thousand Plateaus". Taken together, an
invigorating experience akin to visiting a sauna with a cold plunge.

[⍦] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

[◇] The connection I am drawing to Glen's linked paper is to:
1. similarities between alethic and doxastic modalities.
2. highlighted tensions between constructivist and analytical modalities.

[⌂] I think of a theory of this kind as weakly rejecting the notion of
Peircean
truth. Different individuals, with different biologically determined
universal
belief structures, would ultimately believe different things in the long
run.
What would be considered truth, in the long run, could only then be a
tragedy
of intersectional beliefs.

[⍼] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome_(philosophy)



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/