Hello Dan,
At 12:00 PM -0600 11/13/99, Dan Glover wrote:
>Hello everyone
<snip>
>I also disagree we will ever understand nature
>of reality or nature of self.
I disagree with your disagreement! It's easy for me to state that I
understand myself and I understand reality. How can you refute me? By
proving I'm wrong? That you could only do by proving my concepts of the
nature of reality or self are illogical or inconsistent and to that you'd
need to understand reality better than me, and in doing so you'd prove your
original premise - the nature of reality is unknowable - as wrong. Then
I'd steal all your best ideas for myself in my new and improved
understanding of the nature of my self and reality and I'd be content once
more and unassailable.
At least till the next refutation came along.
It seems sort of arrogant and defeatist at the same time to say "It's all
unknowable". I mean how could you know that?
> We cannot say what "kind" of value resides
>in value-centered Universe without slipping into relativism.
>
>Dan
The truth is, that my understanding of myself and reality is always
relative to where I stand today in my relation to and understanding of the
cosmos.
What kind of value resides at the center of my universe? - Good. If
that's "slipping into relativism" I fail to understand the problem with
that.
Cheers,
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST