Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:14:07 +0100
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:29:31 +0000 Glove
<glove@indianvalley.com> wrote:
> Platt wrote:
>
> Glove's objection to the universe striving to become better is
> ultimately self-contradictory because he asserts that his intellectual
> pattern of "rippling evolution" is better than the Pirsigian and
> Darwinian intellectual patterns. Surely intellectual patterns are to be
> included as part of the universe. No matter how hard the intellect tries
> to be "objective," there's no escape from morality.
Sounds fine to me.
>
> my comment:
>
> i am not proposing a 'better' solution to either darwinian or pirsigian
> evolution at all, even though if one continues to think in s/o dualistic
> terms, i can certainly see where it would come off as such in the
> 'rippling evolution' post i wrote. i attempted to make that clear in my
> post but i also realize its very hard to see unless the reader first
> drops the dualitistic thinking associated with betterment.
>
> i am proposing a 'different' solution which is no more 'right' than
> darwins theory of evolution or pirsigs MOQ
Relativism has no place within any Pirsigian context and
that should include the LS. Read chapter 3 on ZMM! So if
you have a 'different' solution which is no more 'right'
than Darwin's theory or Pirsig's MOQ may I suggest you join
a discussion group dedidcated to Feyerband, Thomas Kuhn,
astrology, Aliens, Nuage or any other relativisitic/liberal
theory which is the current flavour of the month. But
please don't block my in-box with such drival.
> and i would be grossly
> overestimating myself if i thought anything i said was 'better' than
> either of the two authors mentioned.
Well, a lot of what Darwin wrote is pretty suspect or was
ripped off other scientists. Moreover, I've never seen a
good reply to a Marxist critique of ZMM or the MOQ.
> all my writings can be taken for
> what they are...subjective insights
By subjective, do you mean intellectual quality judgements
or social quality judgements? I wish people on the LS
would use the proper terminology... In fact, I think its
about time "subjective" and "objective" were banned
entirely from the LS. Let's have some discipline here!
> into reality that i wish to share
> with others in an attempt to perhaps see more clearly into the chaotic
> patterns i find all around me.
>
> i am not being objective
Another very strange word on the LS; by objective, do you
mean inorganic quality judgements or biological quality
judgements?
> at all, but rather subjective, which i thought
> came across very clearly in my post.
A subjective opinion as clear? You haven't even defined
your basic terminology properly yet!
> i will restate it... morality is as
> individualistic as quality. morality is a truly subjective subject, if i
> might be so bold as to pun it like that.
Do you know Glove, I met Elvis at my local (Tesco)
supermarket store in Liverpool yesterday; he said send a
big hello to Glove in Indian Valley. Uh uh.
>
> as you all might guess, i also disagree with the phrase 'change for the
> better vs permanence' as it is a dualistic phrase
Unlike subjects and objects, of course?
> indicating that there
> are indeed objects of permanence in universe* when i feel that this is
> never the case. i have already said enough about betterment.
>
> all of universe is in a constant state of flux (please excuse my
> inappropriate use of constant...no other way arises for me to express
> the thought) which seems to continually regenerate into loops which
> could be mistaken for circles if it were not for the fact no two points
> can occupy a space simultaneously in universe, and so the 'circle'
> overlaps itself.
>
> is it possible for pirsigs model of
> inorganic-biological-societal-intellectual to come full loop back to
> the inorganic? can you see how the diagram works out if it is placed in
> a loop instead of a vertical sequence?
Yeah, I can. It leads to moral relativism and disaster.
> now we can see that the
> intellect is
> influencing the inorganic and the loop begins again. this doesnt make
> the diagram 'better' but it causes it to differ in how we view it.
>
> i want to make it clear that even though i continue to use words that
> are inappropriate and slip back into judgements of better and worse, at
> the heart of my meanderings, in the sharing of my insights, i do not
> consider anything 'better' than any other thing.
So, on a given day if I rescue ten people from drowning
this action is no better or worse than gassing one million
Jews? "Love me Tender, love me true..." HE IS ALIVE, Glove
believe the TRUTH... Uh uh. "Mine for ever more..".
> all perceptions are
> true perceptions no matter who happens to be perceiving them, and all
> perceptions are false perceptions at the same time. i enjoy reading
About time YOU read:
1. Plato's "Theaetetus", and then,
2. A critical book on this dialogue AFTER thinking about
what YOU make of the "Theaetetus" YOURSELF, such as
McCabe's "Plato's Individuals" (published by the Princeton
University, New Jersey).
> and
> getting imput from each and every post i receive from the lila squad and
> the only reason i happen to pick a particular phrase to respond to is
> certain thoughts arise when i read the posts and they pull me to them or
> i pull them to me, i havent decided which, or if it really matters
> which.
>
> if there were an absolute in universe, surely it would have reared its
> beautifully ugly head by now. therefore, as i see it, the only absolute
> that lies ahead for any of us is death.
Do you mean biological, social or intellectual death?
> that seems as absolute as it
> gets.
>
> glove
>
> * for any who wonder at my use of universe without the 'the'
No, strangely enough I have not wandered the streets of
Liverpool wondering why you haven't prefaced universe with
"the". Though, maybe there is something lacking in my
life; I'll ask for Elvis's opinion about this the next time
I see him in Tesco's/Red Lobster/KFC.
> (i've been
> waiting for that question and have grown impatient it seems), it is
> because i do not consider myself separate from universe. we are one and
> the same and to refer to me as 'the me' sounds rather ridiculous if one
> intellectualizes about such nonsense.
So therefore "Death" isn't so absolute then?
> so i dropped the 'the' whenever i
> refer to universe. it seems like such a small concession to make and yet
> it makes all the difference in how i view reality...another example of
> precessionary
What the hell does "precessionary" mean? Answers on a
postcard to "John Lennon, Linguistic Analysist, Tesco
Superstore, Liverpool, the universe".
> at work i might add.
Looks like you're the one who needs to some work, Glove.
P.S. By the way, as you are called Glove, did you think the
Smith's "Hand in Glove" was a reference to female
domination or was it about how familiarity* breeds
contempt?
* read relativism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST