Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:16:38 +0100
Platt and LS
>
> 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?
>
I agree with you regarding the existence of 'out there'. I don't see
any other way that we can experience an 'in here'. The two have a
fairly complex relationship to each other. I do think though that
there is only 1 out there and that the intellectual realationship
between 'in here' and 'out' there' results in classification by
catagory, in order to make sense of the whole relationship and
what is 'out there'. It is my belief that there is only one 'natural'
catagory and that is the set of everything. Subsequent division is
arbitrary.
> HORSE: Give me an example of something that is truly absolute.
>
> Your belief that there are no absolutes.
>
Let me rephrase my belief in the absence of absolutes. In order
that an absolute can be shown to be an absolute, one must
possess knowledge of all things in all possible worlds. I do not
have this knowledge and, as far as I am aware neither does anyone
else. In the absence of this knowledge I have to conclude that what
are referred to as absolutes are constructions and approximations
and cannot be shown to exist as absolutes. I have an open mind
and will accept, upon reasonable evidence, the existence of
absolutes. Until that time...
>
> 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.
>
The sort of relativism I was referring to was the idea that one idea
or moral position is no better than any other. Something I am not
guilty of - nor I believe are you - It was a flippant remark. I agree
with the rest of what you say above - except for the absolute in the
absolute provision :)
>
> > 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.
>
I tend agree. I would say that there are many things we agree on
and even where we disagree it is not unhealthy nor in total
opposition. A matter of degree - fuzzy :)
I hope others reading our discussion haven't been too bored.
I look forward to future differences of view. This one was fun.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
-- 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