Jonathan, (Ken, Struan, Roger),
I liked the following that you wrote:
[...] a common "objective" discussion about
truth is always a discussion WITHIN AN AGREED CONTEXT. The "validity" of
context itself is outside the discussion - making it rather subjective.
Thus, "objectivity" is actually objectivity within a non-objective
framework. However, the context isn't all subjective either. Context has to be
implicitly agreed, and has to provide a comfortable working environment.
This a quality judgement - coming *before* subjectivity vs. objectivity.
Great writing Jonathan. I'm intrigued by this 'Quality judgement'. It's the
(often) unconscious agreement/acceptance of the environment the Truth is in.
History has proven that this context can change or better shift immensely. Take
for example the first maps of the world being flat in stead of round. It's the mythos
that defines our truths ... that defines our Good.
As persons we belong to different groups (think: friends, family, nation but also
mankind itself). All groups exist within certain contexts, making morality/reality-
judgements that can later be overthrown when context changes (when the group
is dynamic enough to let the context change or when a new context is forced
upon them).
You go on, writing: "However, the context isn't all subjective either". I strongly
agree with you, but I want to ask you on what you think this context is based
then? I've been poundering on this for some time. I'm affraid it comes right back
to the discussion that Struan once started and we never really finished (see
part of 'Pirsig on human nature'-june 99). This is an excerpt of the posts:
Struan:
We are discussing nothing less than the whole concept of everything being quality,
assuming we use the term in anything more than the most banal sense where
we could simply restate it as everything is X.
Ken in respons to Struan:
I am interested in knowing what your view of the source of the good is.
As you say, a definition and source of "the good" is a definite requirement
for the validity of the MoQ. I have puzzled over this for some time and can
find no source for "good" except the universe. [...]
Maybe there is no source and the MoQ is a bunch
of crap. Maybe "good" is only applicable to certain narrow groups with each
group having a different definition. I will be interested to hear your
views. At the moment I am up the creek without a paddle. Ken
Roger responded a in later post:
Seriously,if the world is defined as A values B, then we are surronded by
Value. We are surrounded by Good.
I know..... you are now going to ask if it really makes any difference now to
call everything good. We may as well call it all energy or will or whathaveyou.
But Quality or Value or Good works ok too.
It is just a way of experiencing.
Is Roger right? (would be the first time ;-))
Any thoughts (anyone?)?
Walter
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:35 BST