RE: MD Absolutes and Generalities

From: Erin N. (
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 00:09:01 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD The Quality of removing Saddam Hussein from power."

    >> Look at your language Platt lol... if truth is
    >> always personal and relative.
    >> Where was that said? As usual by nobody but you.
    >So sometimes truth is absolute?

    It's not that truth is or isn't absolute to me.
    It's about whether I can know if it is absolute.
    That doctor/germ quote is a good example. I didn't
    think of an example of where it was not true but
    I didn't think of it as an absolute just because
    I couldn't think of one. Then Jon gave an example
    in which it wouldn't necessarily be true.
    Ta da...
    So considering the possibility that i can't think
    of every possible situation then I don't claim
    anything as absolute even though I think its
    possible to be an absolute.

    >> All the strong language you give are about the ideas within the MOQ
    >> but where does he use strong language about the MOQ in its entirity.
    >So the ideas in the MoQ are strong but the MoQ isn't?

    At this time it is strong for me but I hold the
    possibility that it won't in the future if a better
    explanation comes along so that is why I don't consider
    it absolute.

    >> >In any event, I had to smile at your implication that it would be
    >> >absolutely wrong to argue that Pirsig misinterpreted Pirsig. Or is that a
    >> >"provisional" judgment on your part? :-)
    >> Again you have to add words like "absolutely
    >> wrong" to other people's statements.
    >> Notice its only you who likes writing in this
    >> manner.
    >Pirsig writes in this manner at times.

    Yes he writes in all different manners with all the
    different characters. You should try a little creative
    writing, taking other people's perspective might
    be a good exercise for you;-)

    >> Can you consider the possibility that
    >> Pirsig slightly EXAGERATES all three characters
    >> to make them clearly representative of the level
    >> they are supposed to.
    >> I don't think Pirsig ever suggests to take
    >> MoQ in the absolute sense.
    >> Is it possible that Phaedrus
    >> could be representative of Pirsig's opinion
    >> of MOQ at a particular point in his life but
    >> changed his mind and wrote in retrospect.
    >> So many possibilities that I can't just can't
    >> accept your opinion as Pirsig's.
    >> I even consider the terrifying thought that
    >> Pirsig does suffer delusions of grandeur like
    >> you and thinks that he can't be wrong (but
    >> that usually doesn't last long thank god).
    >Yes, I'm sure Pirsig would admit he could be wrong. I've admitted it
    >many times on this site. I trust you'll admit the same regarding your
    >own views.

    No I never never never can be wrong. That is
    one thing I am absolutely positively certain
    of lol. Yes ** I ** know that, that's why
    I don't attach the a-word to my opinions.

    The only thing is I wished I understood
    3dwavedaves analogy of architecture when we
    were going around in circles about this
    at a previous time. I don't feel like I fully got what he was
    trying to say but it seemed like some midpoint.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 00:01:10 GMT