From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 15:23:41 GMT
Hi Jonathan:
> JONATHAN
> > IMO opinion, any "absolute" statement, such as Pirsig's
> > one about the doctor can be contextualized so that it or its
> consequences
> > become incorrect.
>
> PLATT
> Now that's an absolute statement if I ever saw one, so not to be
> believed
> because, as you say, it can be contextualized to become incorrect.
>
> JONATHAN replies:
> I agree that my statement might be regarded as absolute.
> I disagree that means it is "not to be believed". You, not me, are the one
> who believes in absolutes. Thus it is hypocritical of you to disbelieve
> absolute statements.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. If as you say all purported absolute
statements can be incorrect, it is you, not I who question the truth of
your own statement.
> My approach is to take my statement "in context". I believe that what I
> said is broadly true, but can imagine that it could be put into a context
> that renders it void.
Are there any absolute truths in your thought processes, or do you take
every true statement to be "broadly true" subject to be false in some
other imagined context?
> PLATT continued
> I know you recognize the self-contradiction in "There are no absolutes."
>
> We've been around this block before. In truth, the world is full of
> absolutes like "There's no way a doctor can bring back to life innocent
>
> victims killed by a terrorist bomber," a horror you have to live with
> everyday. Likewise, in most societies a terrorist bomber of innocent women
> and children is considered to be absolutely evil. Pirsig has now given us a
> rational basis for asserting the absolute evil of such behavior, a welcome
> checkmate to postmodern relativism.
JONATHAN
> This is funny. You say "a terrorist bomber ... is considered absolutely
> evil", but preface it with "in most societies". Are terrorists absolutely
> evil, or does it depend on the society? Or does it depend on who is doing
> the "considering" and what they define as terrorism? Far from supporting
> your point, your example supports mine.
Again, I apologize for not making make myself clear. My point was that
Pirsig has provided us with a rational basis for determining that a terrorist
is absolutely evil rather than determining evil by what society says.
Relying on society to determine good and evil--well, you know the
problem inherent in that course better than I, living next to a society
that condones murder. And what about the absolute of a murdered
victim?
JONATHAN:
> I've nothing against taking a strong moral stand on terrorism and other
> issues. I just think it a pity to create inconsistencies by misplaced use
> of the word absolute.
I guess our difference revolves around the terms "strong" and "absolute."
IMO, the Holocaust was not merely a strong evil but an absolute evil,
not broadly true that it happened, but absolutely true. In my imagination
I can think of no extenuating context that would render using absolute in
that case "incorrect." Can you?
IMO, it's OK for Pirsig to apply absolutes to "subjective" moral
questions just as scientists like yourself use absolutes in their
measurements of "objective" reality. Fact is, all of us use absolutes
everyday. Will you or won't you reply to this post? Every choice acted
upon becomes an absolute, like, you know, "The moving finger having
writ . . ."
Glad to see you back in fine fettle! :-)
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 15:24:22 GMT