Hi Erin:
> ERIN: 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.
It's a generalization, true.
>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.
Did I claim that my generalization about postmodernism was
absolute? I don't think so. I said postmodernism was 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!!!!!!!!!!
OK. How about in your case saying that you are 1)Uncertain of ultimate principles?
>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"
You cannot be absolutely certain of your own existence? This is what
throws me. Are you not absolutely certain of being alive? Of being
human? Can you like me straight in the eye and say, "Yes Platt, in my
reality I cannot be absolutely certain that I am real because I cannot be
certain of my reality as absolute." I assuming here, as I think most
people would, that you include yourself in your reality. If not, we really
have a problem.
> 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.
Now we're talking! Logic doesn't rule out coexistence of opposites, like
the heads/tails of a coin. But, the truth=beauty equation really rings my
chimes. It may be the key that leads to the veiled Fifth Level, if there is
one.
> >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?
I proved to myself I was born when I realized that I couldn't deny it
without admitting it. As for Schrodinger's Cat, the puzzle was not
whether the cat was absolutely dead or alive, but whether one could tell
without direct observation. Until then, the cat was absolutely in limbo.
> As Bill Maher said last week "What is wrong with being a 99%er What is
> wrong with saying I don't know?"
Nothing wrong with saying "I 99% don't know." But supposedly that is a
100% reflection of someone's thought about his level of knowledge.
No matter how you slice it, those nasty old absolutes keep popping up.
Platt
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