Marsha said to dmb: Oh my, have you had a realization? Or are you still going to hurl insults at me because I will not adopt the perspective you've concocted from your small portion of the flux-of-life?
dmb says: A realization? No, not lately. Apparently you think James's statement about the need for "many cognizers" supports your view that reality is whatever we want it to be. Apparently, you think it supports your relativism. But of course that's exactly the interpretation I've been objecting to all along, isn't it? I think you are always interpreting pragmatism and the MOQ the way its uncomprehending critics always have; as a form of relativism. This is just one more example of conflating relativism with the plural and provisional nature of pragmatic truth. This is a criticism of your stance but the reason I "hurl insults" is separate from that. Those remarks are about your attitudes and conduct as a participant here. This particular response of yours, for example, belittles my view and it assigns a sinister motive to me, as if I were trying to make you adopt my perspective by calling you names. As I see it, I've been trying to make you understand what Pirsig and James are saying by presenting quotes and explanations. The "insults" are hurled at the way you respond to these reasonable arguments. In this case, I wasn't even talking to you and you've always maintained that you don't give a bunny's butt what James thinks. But somehow this is about you? As I see it, you have done everything to dismiss a mountain of evidence and you are constantly evading the actual issues. I find that very frustrating and very hard to respect. And so I call it like i see it and as I see it that sort of behavior deserves to be insulted. "What he neglected to say was that the selection of facts before you 'observe' them is 'whatever you like' ONLY IN A DUALISTIC, SUBJECT-OBJECT METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM! When Quality enters the picture as a third metaphysical entity, the preselection of fact is no longer arbitrary. The preselection of facts is not based on subjective, capricious 'whatever you like' but on QUALITY, which is reality itself. ...we know from Phaedrus' metaphysics that the harmony Poincare talked about is NOT SUBJECTIVE. It is the SOURCE of subjects and objects and exists in an anterior relationship to them. It is NOT capricious, it is the force that OPPOSES capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and mathematical thought which DESTROYS capriciousness, and without which no scientific thought can proceed." (ZAMM, page 269, emphasis is Pirsig's in the original) Does that sound like relativism? Does that sound like Quality could be equated with chaos, as Krimel says? No, of course not. Just because there is more than one way to be right, because there can be more than one truth, does not mean you can't be wrong, or illogical or simply read with a low level of comprehension. There are lots of ways to be right but there are even more ways to be wrong. Some things just don't add up or make sense, not even to a pragmatist. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:37 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > Ian said: > > > > I can't see what it says to John's point about the redundancy ( non > > pragmatism ) of multiverses / many worlds ? > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > Did John have a point about redundancy? > > > > In any case, here is the basic idea: John said, "I just don't see the need > > for a ridiculous kludge like multi-uni-verse". And I responded with a quote > > from James explaining the main idea behind this "ridiculous kludge": > > "The truth is too great for any one actual mind, even thought that mind be > > dubbed 'the Absolute,' to know the whole of it. The facts and worths of > > life need many cognizers to take them in. There is no point of view > > absolutely public and universal." (James says in the intro to his "Talks to > > Teachers") > > > > Basically, James is saying that there is no objective truth, no absolute > > reality. Life is too rich and thick to be nailed down by any single view or > > perspective. Each of us can only take so much from the flux of life, we can > > only select a certain slice or notice a small portion of experience. Each > > cognizer can only grapple with a handful of sand from an endless landscape > > of experience. > > > > I'd add that "multi-verse" is probably the right word when talking about > > physics but this notion that life needs many cognizers is probably better > > referred to as a "pluralistic universe" simply because we are not living in > > different universes so much as we have many different ways to take it. > > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
