Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:55:49 +0100
Hi Horse, Martin and LS:
HORSE: Categories become real by consensus and in this sense span the
dividing line between social and intellectual patterns of value.
Are not Pirsig's levels and patterns of value also categories? I would
argue that categories and patterns are so similar as to be two words for
the same experience - the experience that "this is related to that."
Also I would argue, as I believe Martin Striz does, that not all
categories are human inventions and made real only by consensus. In his
post of July 22 Martin said, "While WE are the ones who identify the
patterns and make them SQ, they still exist 'out there' to be
identified."
Whether patterns (categories) exist 'out there' or not has been a bone
of philosophical contention at least since Plato, so I don't think we
can settle it here. But my guess is that Pirsig believes that his
patterns of value exist 'out there.' I also believe they exist out there
although I still wonder if there can truly be an "out there" without
there also being an "in here." What do you think?
HORSE: Give me an example of something that is truly absolute.
Your belief that there are no absolutes.
HORSE: I'm not denying that binary logic has value - I think it has
great value and I use if often, but I also think that in many
situations, multivalent logic has greater value (because it) can be used
to express a greater range of possibilities - like the MoQ.
I agree.
HORSE: Well, you seem to be arguing that moral relativism is acceptable
- I can think of a few people on the Squad who would disagree.
Someone who believes there are no absolutes is a relativist, so I guess
that includes you. I'm a "live and let live" kind of guy with one
absolute provision: don't initiate physical force on another adult human
being.
HORSE:
> I joined the Lila Squad for a number of reasons - to contribute to an
> understanding of the MoQ and to pass the results of that
> contribution to the world among them. I don't need to fight for the
> MoQ in the sense that I need to metephorically batter others into
> conforming to my beliefs. But the MoQ as I see it is a more
> complete system than its predecessors and deserves the chance
> to be recognized as such. The combative side of this is intellectual
> and is a fight to prevent the huge momentum of SOM from
> submerging MoQ. This is the way that many intellectual systems,
> including SOM, have made their way from an initial spark of belief
> to a full blown system of belief accepted by many. The MoQ is an
> intellectual challenge to SOM and as such will result in an
> intellectual struggle for dominance. I'm happy to join in. At the
> same time I am not (I hope) abusive, patronising or condescending
> towards others who do not share my view - if I have been then show
> me where and when. I would say that at worst I have provoked
> discussion in the sci.philosophy.meta newsgroup, but came up
> short of abuse etc. Abuse and condescension are what Pirsig
> seemed to be talking about in the paragraph above. Like you I wish
> to explain this system but unlike you I am happy to engage in a
> struggle for intellectual rights to be asserted, because they are of
> higher value than social, biological and inorganic 'rights'.
Bravo! Well said! A great manifesto for the Squad. I happily join in
the struggle for intellectual rights.
I think we've probably reached the point where we understand one another
quite well. I'm glad Diana has allowed us to continue even if we strayed
off the subject she asked us to discuss. A bow of gratitude to her and
to you for enlightening my world. Many thanks. I await your final word.
Platt
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST