Martin Striz (striz@ezwv.com)
Thu, 16 Jul 1998 04:37:31 +0100
Hi folks,
>>... the main bone of contention - what is SQ?
>What has surprised me is that we seem to have considerable consensus on
>DQ, much less on SQ. My observation is that SQ always involves
>relativity. To extend my previous statement:
>"SQ is description" . . . of the relationships of things to other
>things.
>I suspect that this may be the origin of our "change vs. static"
>arguments, in that both are relative terms. To define the whole SQ
>structure, it must be secured on points of reference called axioms.
Perhaps this relative vs. unified view of static patterns isn't such a
big gap. We seem to agree on what exists in the world around us...for
the most part, at least. There is a tree, over there a window, and in
front of me is a computer, and so on. Not too many people would disagree
(if they were here).
I would say we can draw a middle point between individual relative views
and one unified view, and that is *a consensus view.* We may not be
sure of what static patterns we saw in the forrest one dark, stormy
night, but if we invite other people to investigate, we can come to some
kind of conclusion.
This is what science does. One scientist performing one experiment
doesn't do much good. She has to do a thousand experiments, and then
when she thinks she is getting one range of results, she invites other
scientists to try it. They do it thousands and thousands of times and
get similar results, and so they come to a consensus about the way
something works. I'm not sure of the page numbers, but I believe Pirsig
said that science was a big consensus view (talking about Copernicus,
etc.). Indeed, ALL static values are probably based on a consensus
view.
And that would easily explain this perceived 'cultural relativism.' Why
do ghosts not exist for Robert Pirsig, but they do for Indians? Why
does modern man 'have his ghosts, too?' A consensus view on something
doesn't usually go past the culture.
Cheers,
Martin
P.S. I want to stress that what I am in favor of is neither absolute
infallible perception nor individual relativism, but contextualism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST