From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2005 - 15:19:15 GMT
Nick,
I think you're mixing two things up ...
Although you say you are confused and have trouble accepting it, your first
paragraph and a half confirms that scientific truth is indeed contingent and
always evolving. Current truth is the highest quality story currently
available.
Your second point is the us and them problem ..
" ... if they are running the world ...
...truth exists no matter what my opinion ..."
We and they are one and the same, we (you) are part of they.
You simply see your individual self as "relatively" powerless compared to
"them" (the rest of us).
Your individual opinion may seem to have very little bearing. but that's
simply a reflection of relative scales of power, not something absolute.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Clair" < >
To: < >
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: MD newsflash: it's all a con
> Hello
>
> My problem is the part where "one doesn't seek the absolute truth". In the
> scientific world where there are constantly new "truths" replacing old
> "truths" that have become accepted over time then it is best to look for
> the
> truth with the highest quality.
>
> I get confused because that makes it seem like there are no facts at all.
> No
> absolute truth so there are no absolute facts. But someone is running the
> world. It might be the people as a democracy and their representatives or
> it
> might be some secret society that is fooling everyone. But it is one of
> the
> two. That secret society is discussing something at their meetings. If
> they
> are discussing how to run the world and such it doesn't matter if I like
> the
> democracy painting more; they are still running the world regardless of my
> decision. That is if they are running the world.
>
> There has to be an absolute truth here. Somebody has to be running the
> world. Whoever is running the world is going to run it regardless of my
> quality of the quality of the government organization paintings.
>
> I think that a secret organization of friendly Oompaloompas is the best
> painting but that doesn't mean that there are little Oompaloompas deciding
> policy somewhere. Truth exists no matter what my opinion is of it.
>
> Have a wonderful day. I mean that.
> Nick
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto: ]
> On Behalf Of Platt Holden
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:51 PM
> To: ;
> Subject: RE: MD newsflash: it's all a con
>
> Hi Nick, Gav,
>
> Nick, you raise a most interesting philosophical question, namely, "How do
> we know what's a con and what isn't?" Pirsig says you can tell like you
> can tell which paintings in a gallery are the good ones. Here's what he
> says:
>
> "But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it
> becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one
> doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality
> intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is
> any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as
> useful until something better comes along. One can then examine
> intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art
> gallery, not to find which one is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy
> and keep those that are of value." (Lila, 8)
>
> My intellect tells me democracy is a better painting in the gallery of
> government organizations that the other ones, and that the republic
> painting is even better..
>
> So what do you think of Pirsig's gallery test against being conned?
>
> Platt
>
> Nick wrote:
>> We have been conned? So for the longest time we have been told something
>> that isn't true and we have all come to believe it. We believe that in
>> democracy and all that but it isn't true. How do we know it's true?
> Because
>> we are told it's true.
>>
>> So how do we know it's not true? How can we believe that democracy is all
> a
>> con simply by trusting what you say? What makes us so sure you're not
>> trying to con us?
>>
>> It's not that I don't believe you or at least suspect the truth in what
> you
>> say; it's just that you offer no more proof that democracy is a con than
>> they offer to prove democracy isn't a con.
>>
>> I'm very interested. Please go on.
>
>
> Gav wrote:
>
>> MD newsflash: it's all a con
>>
>> with respect guys,
>>
>> it amazes me no end how so many of you can spend so
>> many hours argiung about left/right wing shit: the
>> relative merits of different politics/policies etc
>> when, once you dig down a bit, you find that it is all
>> a con and pretty much always has been.
>>
>> i guess pirsig was unaware of this when he wrote his
>> books (i dunno if he is now). and i think that if he
>> had known he may not have had to lose it to free
>> himself.
>>
>> an example:
>> in the uk there are three political parties: the
>> labour party, the conservatives and the liberal
>> democrats. all three parties are headed by members of
>> the bilderberg group: an extremely shady rich and
>> powerful club that meets regularly at bilderberg
>> (which is in belgium i think). no matter who gets in
>> in you are being ruled by the same people with the
>> same agenda.
>>
>> the logos of these three parties are the rose
>> (labour), the lighted torch (conservatives), and the
>> dove (liberal democrats). all these symbols have
>> esoteric meanings related to the lineage of power
>> across the centuries. for example the lighted torch (a
>> la the statue of liberty) refers to 'illumination' or
>> the 'illuminated ones'. this is a freemasonic
>> reference: they see themselves (at the highest levels)
>> as illuminated because they are privy to ancient and
>> esoteric knowledge withheld from the general public.
>>
>> the statue of liberty was a gift from parisien
>> freemasons to american freemasons. it has nothing to
>> do with democracy and freedom, in fact it is about the
>> opposite. you have to laugh: we have been conned,
>> elegantly, for bloody ages.
>>
>> anyway the good news (and bad) is that everything is
>> changing. exactly how...????? my feeling at the moment
>> is that we are going through an evolutionary
>> bottleneck: those that adapt (tune in) survive; those
>> that remain stuck in obsolete realities....
>>
>> don't get stuck.
>
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
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 -
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 25 2005 - 16:25:22 GMT