>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
> Perhaps looking for consistency in anything and saying "there is no absoute
>truth" in my opinion is ironical.
I think it is so egotistical for you to think you can see the picture with a
strong conviction that the picture can never be altered. Again there is a
possiblity of an absolute truth but I have never heard of an absolute truth
yet and even if you were able I always hold the possibility of some new
information cancelling it out.
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.
Science never says they prove anything, only that they find information
supporting or refuting a HYPOTHESIS.
>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
I am not clear what your point is here. Your absolute truth is proved because
animals do what you do? Not convincing.
>
>
>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
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