From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 20:57:58 BST
Paul,
Paul said (to David):
Once the Sophists were pushed aside the intellectual dream has always seemed
to have been the attempt to build one perfect web but I think Pirsig (and
many others) have shown that firstly, each web is built on a particular
social base, and secondly, that there are many competing webs and this is
good in an evolutionary context. Even as individuals I don't think we have
one consistent web of beliefs.
Scott:
While what I have to say here will sound like Platt's usual objection (is
"there are many competing webs" an absolute truth?), there is a slight but
important difference, which I hope becomes clear in the following.
Even if it has been the case that each web is built on a particular social
base, is that still true? We now have the case that a person from culture A
can say "My belief X stems from my being raised in culture A", and another
person from a different culture B can say "My belief Y stems from my being
raised in culture B". This means that with the
pragmatist/linguistic/postmodern turn both persons have transcended in the
same way the state of being bound to a particular social base. Could this
not, then, be the basis for building that long-sought perfect web?
Obviously, there is a long way to go, even among those who have made that
turn, but the first step is to recognize that that turn *is* the basis.
Practically everything I have been proposing in this forum has been to flesh
out that basis. Part of that is to point out that, though there are frequent
calls for defining such terms as 'consciousness' or 'self', that it can't be
done. The reason it cannot be done is that any attempt runs into the logic
of contradictory identity. Instead, one must just get used to using such
terms without definition, and the LCI has the pragmatic virtue of preventing
the aligning on one side the usual dualisms. Another part is to point out
that the basic terms for this basis, along with quality and consciousness,
and also undefinable, are 'definition', 'language', 'pattern', 'word',
'intellect', and so on. Granted, you do not agree with me that such terms
should also be seen as the basis for metaphysics (as in "what is really
going on at all levels"), yet I think there could be agreement that they
provide a basis for philosophizing.
Pragmatism rejects foundationalism, but what I am saying is that that
attitude can be turned into a practical and universal foundation: that the
intellect creates by challenging existing foundations, and building new
ones.
So I would disagree in part with your statement "there are many competing
webs and this is good in an evolutionary context." Such is our current
state, but suppose almost everyone comes to agree with it. Then we will have
truly started the intellectual level.
- Scott
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 : Sun Jul 24 2005 - 21:18:52 BST