Hello everyone
jc wrote:
>
> 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?
Hi jc
I beguile you to use correct quotes, if you wish to quote others. I did
not write "it's all unknowable", rather it is my belief we will never
understand nature of reality/self. This isn't meant as an "arrogant"
statement and I do not consider my point of view "defeatist". Pirsig
discusses along these same lines when he compares a hand full of sand on
a
beach as all we can ever know of this immensity we call reality. So. My
statement is not "it's all unknowable" but rather: Totality, all which
we
are capable of placing value on, is merely a hand full of sand on an
endless beach.
>
> > 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.
jc, my attributed quote is in response to what I see as DMB's static
quality outlook upon our examination of morals in Pirsig's MOQ. Pirsig
does not state that reality is composed of different kinds of morality,
but that reality IS morality. Pirsig's MOQ is not concerned with truth
but Quality.
Dan
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