[Ham] > I see no difference between a pattern and a thing-in-itself.
This is part of your trouble. If there were TiTs, there would be only one correct way to apprehend them. But like in the "duck/rabbit figure", there can be more than one correct pattern that emerges. [Ham] > Philosophical theory is not a cumulative discipline like the physical >sciences. This is minority view. Most philosophers hold that there is such progress in philosophy. [Ham] > The value of an idea is timeless Not so. The value of an idea is relative to its circumstances. [Ham] > it is small-minded to regard an idea as having special significance simply > because it is "modern". No. That an idea is currently valuable is the most important measure of its value. [Craig, previously] > The better view is determined by its explanatory value. [Ham] > I posit Absolute Essence as the uncreated, undifferentiated, and unchanging >source from which all otherness is negated. Pirsig posits DQ as "the Quality of freedom [that] creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order [that] preserves our world." Which view has more "explanatory value"? Craig? Marsha? --Ham Craig 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/
