From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 21:22:59 BST
Mike:
<Snip you>
<Snip me>
<Snip you>
> > Platt:
> > If you "dissolve" liberalism there would be no need for conservatism. You
> > need the opposites in order to make a value judgment. In fact, without
> > opposites there would be nothing to judge.
>
> Mike:
> And so you value liberalism equally to conservatism, because without
> liberalism there is no conservatism? Sorry Platt, but you've totally
> lost me here.
If life didn't exist neither would death and therefore one couldn't judge
one was better than the other. Implicit in every concept is its opposite.
<snip me>
<snip you>
<snip me>
<snip you>
> > Platt:
> > Many people have given up smoking because it's considered anti-social.
> > Same goes for hard liquor, wine being the more socially acceptable.
> > Psychedelics had their day in the 60's. They are no longer considered the
> > "in" thing to do. So I'm not convinced they have enormous social
> > benefits. The fallout from their widespread use in the 60's indicates the
> > opposite.
>
> Mike:
> So do you deny that booze in moderation has some social level benefit, and
> doesn't merely "feel good" on the biological level? And do you consider
> that something must be fashionable ("the 'in' thing to do") in order to
> have social level benefit?
>
> If the answer to these is "no", your arguments were irrelevant to the
> point I was trying to make, namely that the pros and cons of drug use
> are both spread over the social and biological levels.
As I said, no I don't think they have "enormous" social benefits. By
comparison things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press and free
markets have "enormous" social benefits and are spread over all levels. .
<snip me>
<snip you>
Platt
> > I don't know what you mean by "scare quotes." As for a single "real"
> > reality, Pirsig claims there is -- Quality.
>
> Mike:
> Scare quotes are those things you put around the word "real" (those
> things I just used), to indicate that you consider it a dubious
> concept.
Why is a dubious concept scary?
> Of course, by "no single real reality" I meant "no single
> OBJECTIVE reality". I thought that was what you meant by "real" too.
> So let me amend my statement:
>
> Your love of Pirsig and your scare quotes around "real" (you wrote:
> "Anyway, hard
> to prove one way or another that drug-induced reality is the "real"
> reality") show that you know perfectly well that there is no single
> objective reality. I would never claim that the psychedelic experience is
> "more real" than straight experience, because it's a meaningless claim.
> Reality (as Quality) is the sum total of actual and potential
> awareness/consciousness. I won't rub your face in the implications that has
> for psychedelic use.
So awareness/consciousness of elves, unicorns and little grey men with big
bug eyes from outer space qualifies as "reality (as Quality)"?
> Incidentally, I'd appreciate it if you didn't cut sentences out of my
> writing when you insert your replies, without indicating this with
> "<snip>" or something similar.
A thousand apologies.
Regards,
Platt
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 -
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 : Tue Oct 25 2005 - 22:00:40 BST