dmb, You have again misrepresented what I have said. For example, I have made the correction many times that I have NEVER said "reality is whatever you WANT." I have said "reality is whatever you think." There is a big difference between the two statements. But you continue to misrepresent my words. Whether your misinterpretation is a mistake or intentional, I have no desire to defend myself against fabrication.
Thank you. Marsha On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:38 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
