> [Krimel] > Exactly, this odd notion of a fixed, absolute, perfect point of view is the > dream the drives folks like Ham. You seem to be in accord that philosophers > are on board rationally with what the sciences have demonstrated > empirically. There is no fixed absolute reference point. There is no > Absolute Truth beyond the conception of Absolute Truth. We can imagine such > a thing. We can give it a "tip of the hat or a wag of the finger" But we > have no way of being certain that what we tip and wag at, is what we think > it is.
Platt: I presume you invoke an Absolute Truth in asserting "There is no Absolute Truth." Of course, if true the statement is self-contradictory. If not, it is a relative truth which may or may not be true, depending on your point of view (or your culture if you are a postmodernist). Either way, the statement is doubtful. Ron: What you are pointing out Platt is how Objectivism simply can not objectify Subjective experience. Therefore "Truth" as we know it objectively, is based in subjective belief. Which can not be objectively verified. "Truth" Therefore is a term like "Quality" it is neither subjective nor objective It is both. This is why Pirsig attempts to redefine distinctive expression And redefine the terms of truth finding by placing it in pre-intellectual Experience. "Truth" then is experience. Not an intellectual pattern. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
