From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 14:50:07 GMT
Hi Matt S:
> Self, truth, rationality, absolute morals, absolute
> values, ideal systems - these are all concepts that
> see man as the centre of thought.
Is man not the center of thought? Who or what would you nominate as
the center of thought if not man?
>They see man as
> someone who can truly understand and master reality, a
> man whose view on the world is pure, a clear lens
> through which reality can be seen, understood and
> analysed without being tainted.
Who is "they?"
> Are you asserting that this is true? Do you deny that
> truth, morals and even thought itself are contingent
> and changing (although their very essence is to assert
> their supremity)?
Yes, I do deny that truth, morals and thought are the result of chance
and change. I believe it is absolutely and forever true that the second
paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence begins with the
words, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident . . ." How about you? I
believe is it absolutely and forever moral to eliminate slavery. How about
you? I believe thought to be absolutely and forever necessary for human
survival. How about you?
> Pirsig deconstructs the problems of the SOM in line
> with this postmodernist concern with 'humanism' in
> thought.
Pirsig doesn't "deconstruct" SOM. He points out its essential
weakness. It cannot deal with morals. He then proposes a new
metaphysics which includes but transcends SOM. Do you agree? Could
you explain the postmodernist concern with "humanism" in thought? I
thought postmodernists were, for the most part, humanists.
> But then he introduces the 'intellectual
> level of value patterns', which I see as a
> re-affirmation of the sovereignty of man in thought.
If by thought you mean as Pirsig says, "the collection and manipulation
of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience,"
then man IS sovereign. What is your objection to man being the center
and sovereign of thought? Is there some other source of thought I've
missed out on?
I fail to see any agreement between the MOQ and postmodern theory
which begins by denying the existence of a universal truth while at the
same time asserting its denial to be universally true. Do you see the
absurdity?
Don't mean to be confrontational. I'm interested in your premises and
thought processes. Answers to direct questions are the quickest way to
understand another's point of view.
Platt
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 Feb 25 2003 - 14:52:03 GMT