From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 02:58:48 GMT
Sorry I may have done too much clipping in my attempt to summarize and confused you. I was not calling Horse's answer pointless, that was written by Horse to Platt.
HORSE: > > If something is
> > absolute then it is so in all possible worlds and at all times.
>
PLATT: Another absolute truth?
HORSE: A definition. Absolute is defined as such.
Given that humans do not have this knowledge making such statements is
pontless and without meaning.
Ian Glendinning <ian@psybertron.org> wrote:
Erin, I'm not sure what order the exchange you quote happened, but it illustrates the circularity of looking for absolutes ...
You call Horse's "all possible worlds" answer "pointless and without meaning".
(In fact Horse was making a condition, not an answer ... starting with "if".)
Horse, as you point out, goes on to confirm that "context" is necessary for understanding.
Seems most of us agree knowledge needs context (ie is "relative" to that context) to be at all meaningful (ie useful) in any world we may actually experience.
Absolutes are for the world of thought experiments of pure logic and controlled boundary conditions, but not reality.
I too found MSH statement of believing in absolute truth, but not absolute morality a little odd, but I suspect it makes more sense like this.
I believe all bases for making right or wrong decisions in the real world are context dependent, but that does not preclude the fact that some abolute truth (set of knowledge) might exist in the world beyond any influence on our experience. Whether or not I believe mankind will ever agree on enough context and remove all outstanding and uncertainty and doubt, to believe there is no more knowledge beyond its experience, does not change my preparedness to believe it might exist. What it does say though, is that in the real world of possible experiences, truth (and morality) remains context dependent (relative).
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: Erin
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: MD Re: Is Morality relative?
ARLO:
Perhaps the teaching here is that to the question "Are there absolutes?", the
only possible answer we can give is "mu"... which Pirsig makes clear is a
viable and reasoned answer.
ERIN: Except it doesn't really explain to somebody why you choose to not say yes or no. I prefer Horse's response of " If something is
absolute then it is so in all possible worlds and at all times.
Given that humans do not have this knowledge making such statements is
pontless and without meaning."
msh says:
I think I should point out that, though I believe there is absolute
truth, I do not believe that there is some moral absolute that
applies at all times in all situations. Because some statements are
absolutely true doesn't mean that every question has an absolute
answer.
Erin: I'm not really getting why claiming knowledge of absolute truth is justified.
msh: OF COURSE context is
necessary to make moral judgements. Except for religious whackos who
imagine they have a hard-wire connection to the mind of God, who
would claim otherwise?
Erin: well, actually when you claim to know absolutes, it does appear to be claiming to be hardwired into a super consciousness or something along that lines... A twist on an old joke: What is the difference between an Absolutist and God. God doesn't think he's an Absolutist.
I thought this is funny.
Platt: Pray, what am I missing?
Horse: Context.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 03:01:40 GMT