>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
ERIN: I have a feeling that if I explain this again it is just going to be
another game of telephone with me saying something and you repeating it back
all warped. You complained about postmodernists overgeneralizing but don't you
see trying to fit all of them into one category is an overgeneralization on
your part. Why don't you just try a little to reconstruct you concept of
postmodernism. To try and define "one true absolute" definition of
postmodernism is absurd and contradictory on your part.
If I have misread your statements, I apologize, but I don't recall you telling
us about your views of postmodernism which I see as being based on the
following fundamental beliefs
1)Denial of ultimate principles.
2)Truth relative to each person, so no truth better than another.
3) Reality not a mirror of independent reality but individually constructed.
1)First of all we have already gone over it is not DENIAL of absolutes or
CERTAINTY of no absolutes. It is an UNCERTAINTY of absolutes. STOP DENYING
THIS!!!!!!!!!!
2)I explained the lapse of logic #2 below.
3) "I" can not be certain of my reality as absolute but "I" do not deny the
possiblity of a "Reality"
ERIN:
(previous post)I just wanted to explain one more thing in detail. I have "the
odds" of absolutes at about 50/50 BUT in my opinion it is an
overgeneralization (on Wilber's, yours, and some postmodernists) to take that
and go jump to "all views are equal". When I say there is a degree of
objectivity and subjectivity in everything I experience that doesn't mean 50%
objectivity and 50% subjectivity. I didn't say every statement has the same
degree of each what I am saying that I have never encountered anything that I
can put as 100% objective or 100% subjective
PLATT:The absolute of logic is A is A. Once that equation is denied there's no
>defense against irrationality. That's why some postmodernists are so
>adamant about insisting "there are no absolutes," and why the edifice
>of science, built on rationality, is attacked as a tool of oppression . . .
>part of an overall attack on universal principles. (I admit to once
>proposing that A = A be changed to A = Quality, but without much
>applause.)
ERIN: I am just so happy you used "some postmodernists"!!! Are you becoming
uncertain of postmodernism? A = A is the absolute of logic is not saying
the same thing as A is absolute.
Keats "truth is beauty, truthbeauty" In some chemical reactions there is the
creation of a third entity. I feel this "truthbeauty" may be the coexistence
of opposites.
>PLATT: Would you accept as an absolute that you were born? Or is that
>also a 50-50 proposition? Rick would no doubt insist your birth was
>provisional.
>
ERIN: It is the same as the birthdate Platt. I don't have a problem with
accepting absolutes on FAITH but I don't like to pretend I reasoned throught
it and arrived at an 100% objective conclusion. What I said there is a degree
of subjectivity in everything, not 50% degree. So can you give me any hints
how you proved to yourself you were born? Is there some new literature on the
Schrodinger's Cat puzzle that I missed?
As Bill Maher said last week "What is wrong with being a 99%er What is
wrong with saying I don't know?"
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 - 16:01:48 BST