On 2 Feb 2010 at 3:26, MarshaV wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I have stated clearly that I know nothing of the Absolute, and I state nothing
> that is absolute. I stated that static (conventional) truth is relative,
> relative
> to individual history and context.
>
> "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of
> quality
> is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns
> are
> different for everyone because each person has a different static
> pattern of
> life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns
> influence his
> final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual
> value
> judgments but not complete uniformity."
> (RMP, SODV)
>
> This statement also seems to indicate that static patterns of value (static
> truth, conventional truth) are not equal, but different. and explains why.
> I do not understand relative truth to be 'extreme'.
Hi Marsha,
When you state "nothing is absolute" you state an absolute ("nothing is .
. . ) which contradicts your statement. Pirsig also states an absolute
when he says, "these static patterns are different for everyone."
Any statement that demands to be taken as valid such as "nothing is
absolute" or "static patterns are different for everyone" acknowledges
the existence of an absolute truth from the start. Once that exception is
granted the whole illusory universe of relativism is overthrown.
Platt
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/
