dmb, So sorry, I should have used an e-motive. I was kidding :-)
Marsha On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:32 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
