Hi David L., Ian and all,
DAVID LIND:
[snip]
> It appears that in all of the posts on this
> subject - the writers believe there is a "thing" called insanity.
> Except for me.
[snip]
> Jonathan - our views are compatible with the exception that you
> believe insanity to exist and I see it as a social construct, created
> by man to help seperate/classify people.
We agree more than you think. I believe that insanity exists AND agree
that it is largely a social construct. Insanity exists just as much as
Newtons Law of Gravity exists.
You are claiming (rightly IMHO) that there are no absolute objective
criteria for determining sanity/insanity, but to use this as a basis to
deny the existance of insanity sounds most unPirsigian to me.
[snip]
> Johnathan wrote: The people we normally consider insane are people
> who
> are completely unable to function under what we consider to be
> "normal"
> conditions.
>
DAVID L.
> aha. what WE consider to be "normal" - this is the crux of
> my position - it all comes down to what a group of people (either the
> majority, or those with the power) decide is normal...
I agree with you David, but disagree that there is any contradiction.
Just because normal behaviour is a "social value" doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. In MoQ terms, it is a very real Social Pattern of Value.
> Jonathan - you can assure me that "insanity does exist, but
> unforunately, I need more than just your assurance. The way I see it,
> whether or not you are deemed insane depends ENTIRELY on what is
> considered sane by your culture. Period. And if insanity is as
> relative a truth as that - how can it "exist"?
David, let me state my position on "truth" yet again. ALL truths are
relative, and only apply relative to certain assumptions or specified
circumstance.
> Ian wrote: "We hold that all men are equal" This is patently untrue
> yet I hold it as a wonderful philosophy.
>
> David writes: The phrase is (if we're thinking of the same one) "We
> hold that all men are CREATED equal"
With or without the correction, this is a great example. The principal
(equality of men) has been widely accepted but understood in hugely
different ways. The US proclaimed equality in its constitution and then
continued to enslave humans for several generations. In the Soviet
Union, equality meant something quite different, and they created a
different form of slavery.
Ian, to call the principal of equality "patently untrue" is to try and
objectify a value that isn't objective. The question should be "are WE
true to the principal?".
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST