<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dave -<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:56e2b0d5-0f4c-4370-818c-793d70d7a0db@www.fastmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">Previously, I noted: "Asserting
that all is interpretation is an invitation to engage in a
conversation about "meaning" or "reality" from a level playing
field — i.e. absent any grant of privilege to one interpretation
over another; and, any expectation that somewhere, somehow, even
the most consensual and widely shared interpretation can, or
will, morph into some kind of "fact" or "truth."<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
It sounds like you think there is such a thing as "a level playing
field"? Or perhaps you just want us to grant that as either
axiomatic or self-evident?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:56e2b0d5-0f4c-4370-818c-793d70d7a0db@www.fastmail.com">
<div style="font-family:Arial;">Both axiomatic statements and
"self-evident truths" (Declaration of Independence) are
consensual assumptions about an interpretation; an agreement
that said statements are reasonably "correct" and sufficiently
shared among ourselves, that we can use them as starting points
for conversations about "reality" (e.g. constants like e, c, and
i, or relationships like E= M times Csquared) or the "meaning"
of something (e.g what it is to be self governing).<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I agree that axioms and self-evident truths are consensual
assumptions. The distinction for me is that while both are
fundamentally utlititarian or pragmatic, the latter carry an
emotional weight. "self-evident truths" represent a starting point
which somehow reflects something more deeply shared among those who
hold them. I'm sure that there were British Loyalists (including
or acutely so, wealthy property owners who benefited significantly
under British rule) who did NOT "hold these truths" and either fled
the revolution or adopted the pretense of sharing and remained in
place trying to "game" the new system forming around them. The
most fundamental example of this would be the majority of the
"founding fathers" who could out of one side of their mouths (or
inkwells) utter "all men are created equal" whilst presuming to
*own* men (and women and children) as chattel property. Similarly
the question of women's property rights, voting rights, coverture,
etc. this issue dovetails with the incomplete thread with Glen on
the topic of "what means ownership". <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:56e2b0d5-0f4c-4370-818c-793d70d7a0db@www.fastmail.com">
<div style="font-family:Arial;">Conversations, so begun, can weave
a tapestry of interpretation that can be wonderfully useful,
deeply enriching, psychologically comforting, socially
beneficial, technologically advancing, etc. <br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">Problems, inevitable it seems,
arise when it is forgotten that both the axioms and the tapestry
remain interpretations — interpretations shared only by some,
not all; interpretations, not fact, not truth.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not sure how you mean that axioms are interpretations. I
agree that they are consensual assumptions (has this discussion
just become circular?), though the former (axioms) might seem to
be more arbitrary than the latter. On the other hand, common
examples of axiomatic systems such as planar (aka Euclidean)
geometry also carry a strong overtone of being "self-evident".</p>
<p>Perhaps it is my formal training in mathematics coming before
extensive exposure to philosophy and metaphysics, but I'm not sure
what it means to have a discussion of interpretations which are
not somehow grounded in assumptions (such as axioms). I don't
disagree that making those assumptions *explicit* is critical to
any such conversation being interesting much less productive.</p>
<p>In the domain of our current polarized political scene, much is
taken for granted but not made explicit. Characteristic
disagreements between left and right include issues as fundamental
as "right to life" (e.g. abortion v. death penalty) and "personal
rights" (e.g. abortion v gun ownership). It is *very* rare in my
experience to be able to have reasoned discussions about either
issue with *either side*. In these examples, I am sympathetic
with the idea that what is at issue is "interpretation" of "what
is life?", "wherefrom derives a right?"</p>
<p><br>
</p>
- Steve<br>
</body>
</html>