On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:10 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2010 at 10:11, MarshaV wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 9:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> 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,
>>
>> I stated "I know nothing about the Absolute", and "I state nothing that is
>> absolute", not 'nothing 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'.
>>
>> Marsha
>
> Marsha,
>
> What is the difference between "I state nothing that is absolute" and
> "Nothing is absolute?" Are you saying some statements are absolute but
> you never make such statements? If so, what about your statement, "I
> state that nothing . . ." Is that not a statement that is absolute? Sounds
> to me like you are absolutely certain that "I state nothing that is
> absolute." Once you acknowledge the certain truth of that statement, the
> universe of relativism is overthrown.
>
> What's "extreme" is the absolutist assertion that truth is relative, a
> statement that self-contradictory and thus nonsensical.
>
> Also, you seem to make a distinction between plain truth and static,
> conventional truth as if there was another kind of truth that supersedes
> that which is static/conventional. What might be the nature of such a
> "different" truth?
>
> Finally, where we find common ground is when we leave the
> intellectually focused SOM truth-world behind and step into the world of
> art and beauty. Whether a Rachmaniov concerto is true or not is
> irrelevant to its meaning Maybe Pirsig is trying to nudge intellect into
> that aesthetic realm by his gallery method of determining truth. If so,
> arguments about whether truth is absolute, relative or "sensible" become
> pointless. We then judge truth by its splendor.
>
> Platt
Platt,
What I meant was to explain that I did not use the word 'absolute', but that it
was you
that brought the word into the discussion. I have no comprehension of anything
absolute as it is beyond my knowability. You use the word 'absolute' as a
static
pattern of value. If you want to say something static about the absolute, I
think
you are foolish.
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'.
Marsha
___
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/
