From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 21:18:33 BST
Hi all,
I've reposted Dan's message under a new subject. (Seems like we
oughta let ol' Reagan rest in peace).
What Dan's getting at, I think, is important, and sort of ties in
with what I said in my last (and this time I mean it) Reagan post.
Here's Dan's post, followed by mine. I, too, will appreciate any
and all thoughtful comments.
Best,
msh
On 9 Jun 2004 at 12:45, RycheWorld@aol.com wrote:
Gentlemen,
Question: Because of the recent "disagreement" do you agree that
all perceptions are skewed in the sense that, since the day we exit
the womb, absolutely NOTHING is "new" to us? We are shown the way to
do everything, which in turn, sways our beliefs on issues, objects,
thoughts, etc... Therefore, shouldn't we present any facts as trying
to apply our own personal thoughts from a EXTREMELY OBJECTIVE
standpoint?
I mean, we can read a newspaper article and believe it to be
true. But don't we have to analyze what exactly it is we're reading?
Is it someone else's words that we are reiterating??? Or do we form
our opinions based on a personal analysis of the article we read???
Your thoughts?
Dan
msh said:
Here's the core of what Pirsig is saying in the quoted paragraph:
"There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we
can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we
do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns
of values."
In developing their versions of "truth", people do indeed
emphasize some facts and ignore others, as the result of their
"history and current patterns of values." This does not mean
that the facts, whether emphasized or ignored, are not true. So
it's possible for someone to ignore the fact that water freezes
at 0 degrees C, and then go on to develop a beautiful, inwardly
consistent version of "truth." This does not mean they can ice
skate on Lake Eerie in July.
msh said:
> I'm always tickled when I run into the "truth is relative"
> people. This may be "true" but NO ONE believes it, even the
> people who make the statement. They are, after all, trying to
> communicate some "truth."
ph said:
You also appear to ascribe to the notion of what "everybody says"
must be true (or the negative version, "no one believes it").
Besides asserting an absolute truth, you seem oblivious to the
Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.
msh says:
This interpretation of what I said is so far off, it's difficult
to comment. But I'll try to be more clear.
In discussion with others, anyone who says "truth is relative"
either doesn't understand what they are saying, or doesn't
believe it. If the statement is "true", language is useless as a
means of communication. No one, including Pirsig, would bother
to make the statement, much less write a book about it or
anything else.
Thanks to all,
msh
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 21:14:28 BST