Perhaps looking for consistency in anything and saying "there is no absoute
truth" in my opinion is ironical. Because what are we arguing over other
than the the truth in Platt's statements.
Reality is real. That's what the scientist was trying to say in my opinion.
But how can you say that without making a statement about the nature of
truth. Every argument can come down to that. One has to interpret what they
mean NOT what they actually said if you don't believe in absolute truth.
The experience of the Laws of Physics are common to everybody. No matter
your philosophy. Interpretting tham as the "laws" is philosophy, the
objective nature of them is philosophy. In the Matrix, people can control
the laws of physics, our philosophy says that's impossible. Experience leads
us to belive that one cannot control the laws of physics, but who knows.
There is somethinng that is "the laws of physics" beyond the objective human
interpretation of them. Even animals with no communication and thus no
common philosophy know not to jump off a cliff.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Valence
Sent: February 14, 2002 7:18 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Pirsig Strikes Again
Platt,
PLATT
> You're absolutely right, as always.
RICK
Your flip adherence to sophomoric language games exposes the indefensible
nature your position. I have given you 2 explicit instances of Pirsig
contradicting your thoughts. You can't even cite one to the contrary.
Absolutely right? No...(absolute are your bag Platt not mine) but my
position is more CONSISTENT with Pirsig's than yours. I defy you to show
otherwise.
ROB D
In fact, he knows the absolute truth of what Pirsig thinks. Ironically
RICK
Don't be silly Rob. Obviously I couldn't be saying that I 'absolutely' know
what Pirsig means if my position is that there are no absolutes in the first
place.. We can only do our best do try and keep our interpretations of
Pirsig's positions consistent with Pirsig's plain statement of them. You
saw the Pirsig quotes... You saw Platt's... Do you think they were
reconcilable??? Do you think Pirsig would agree with them? If you do think
Pirsig would agree, I will extend my challenge to Platt to you as well...
Please cite 1 passage from LILA that supports Platt's position. If not...
try not to be so easily taken in by Platt's childish semantic games.
rick
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
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 - 16:01:51 BST