>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>
>PLATT:Would you agree that your statement, "I'm uncertain about absolutes"
>is self-contradictory, being an absolutely true statement about your
>state of mind regarding absolutes?
ERIN: I am trying to (maybe i have to read more Wilber) but I still don't see
it. I had a math professor that talked about (infinity + 1). It appeared as
contradictory at first...
WILBER: "The postmodern poststructuralists go from saying 'there is no final
>perspective' ('or perspectives are boundless') to saying, 'therefore there
>is no advantage in any perspective over another.'
ERIN: 1) I never said there is no final perspective, I said I am uncertain if
there is a final perspective
2)I never said there is no advantage in any perspective over another. I
thought I explained myself in the last email. Let me try again. To jump from
"I am uncertain there is a final perspective" to " all perspectives are equal"
is a lapse in logic and overgeneralization on Wilber's part (and some
postmodernists) not mine. There are degrees of objectivity and subjectivity
in all perspectives I have encountered but not the same degrees of each. I
just have not encountered a perspective that I can put as 100% objective or
100% subjective.
WILBER:
This leveling of perspectives is not an interrelation of all perspectives but
is itself >merely one particular and covertly privileged perspective (and thus
>ends up, as we have seen, being perfectly self-contradictory: there is
>no advantaged perspective except mine which maintains that all other
>perspectives are not so privileged)." (Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, p. 188)
>
PLATT: So when I run across self-contradictory assertions like, "There are no
>absolutes," a red flag goes up in my mind about the quality of the
>intellectual argument being made.
ERIN: I can see why, it would for me too. I never even considered myself a
postmodernist (I am not sure if I do now either) I just don't like seeing
something oversimplified and I feel like you are doing it to postmodernism.
I already explained my personal view that there are different types of
postmodernists, ones opinions i find valuable and ones I don't. You
consistently ignore the distinction I make and keep giving me arguments about
the type I don't find value in.
I am starting to feel trying to tell you about postmodernists is what Pirsig
describes as trying to tell somebody about Indians, I can't you already know..
>ERIN: "To me it is a very logical statement to say you can't prove anything
to
>me you can only show me evidence that supports or refutes a
>statement. What the heck is illogical about that."
>
> PLATT:Nothing at all. I agree. The only way I can hope to prove something to
>you is to say, "See for yourself." (Another insight I stole from Wilber.)
>
ERIN: I am glad we can agree about something. I do see the irony that I am
trying to see an absolute by trying to see the most objective perspective even
though I am uncertain there is an absolute. I guess I view the odds of an
absolute as 50/50 but I am also enjoy gambling...
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST