From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 07:42:49 GMT
Hi Platt and Matt S and all:
So, did it end the postmodern aabsolute truth converstation to find some
agreement there? I think Platt agreed that there will always be doubt
because it is absolutely true that you can never know everything, do the
post modernists agree that there is such a thing as absolute truth? Does
Platt further agree that because it is true that we can never know
everything, there will always be doubt about everything, we can never know
that what we believe is certainty true (that is, everything besides the
ultimate truth that we can never know everything.)?
btw, am I taking a childish stoner approach to this question that doesn't
appeal to you edu types? A lot of this post-modern discussion has gone over
my head, and I don't attribute it *all* to people being hard-to-understand,
I am sure some of the reason is due to a lack of sophistication on my part.
Did I hit on something that could make Rorty give up his tenure and never
write another book again? Did I turn Platt into a doubting Thomas, unable
to sleep at night because he's worried the world won't be there when he
wakes up? Am I missing the more meaningful concept? Did I just contemplate
the universe under the fingrnail for the billionth time?
At any rate, I'd like to apply this possible common ground back to this
point:
Matt S:
>>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 think the chance is in figuring if we know the truth or not, not whether
there is an actual truth, right? Like, there are a certain number of keys
on this keyboard, and though I may never count them with absolute certain
final precision, it is true that there IS a *true number* of keys. But
since we can't be sure what that true number is, is that unknowable truth
*the truth* or just an expectation?
>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?
But now, Platt, do you agree that we need to re-ask that question to make
sure that you weren't wrong, that maybe you were the victim of state
propaganda, and that it was actually "We think that this stuff is important
. . ." ? You agree that you don't know everything, well, that is one of the
things you don't know. To prove it, we have to consult some reference, so
all you are asserting is that you predict that a reference will have that as
the second paragraph. I can expect the reference to be correct, and we can
both be confident that it is true, we assert it as true. If we find out
later we were wrong, then we change what is true. We say "we were wrong"
this is what is true.
>I believe is it absolutely and forever moral to eliminate slavery. How
>about you?
I define morality as what people are expected to do. If people were
expected to have or be slaves, then it was moral. People are no longer
expected to have or be slaves, so it isn't moral. The expetation changed
because truth is contingent. if truth wasn't, slavery would still be OK.
>I believe thought to be absolutely and
>forever necessary for human survival. How about you?
Not as much as sleep...
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?
>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:50:07 -0500
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
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 Mar 11 2003 - 07:43:20 GMT