Marsha said to Mark:
...And these interpretations are all patterns, right, ever-changing,
interrelated, impermanent static patterns of value.
Marsha also said to Mark:
...I might see Quality from a unpatterned/patterned point-of-view, you from a
biochemical point-of-view, dmb from a Radical Empiricist American Pragmatist
point-of-view, Ham from his Essence point-of-view, and the many others. It
always seem to come down to the measurement problem.
dmb says:
Ever-changing static patterns? You might see Quality from an
unpatterned/patterned point of view?
Isn't it true that static means stable, which is approximately the opposite of
ever-changing?
Isn't it true that the MOQ's first conceptual distinction is between dynamic
(unpatterned) and static (patterned)?
So the phrase "ever-changing static patterns" undermines the MOQ first
distinction. Like the phrases "fluid rigidity" or "stable flux", it's nonsense.
Just ask Susanna. She knows it rained all night the day I left, the weather it
was dry. The sun was so hot I nearly froze to death, Susanna don't you cry.
Yes, there is room for multiple truths and life is too rich for any one
perspective to do justice. But truth has to make sense. If it's contradictory
or confusing or paralyzing, I don't think we can count it true or good or
right. I think truth has to be correct and useful at least, and hopefully
beautiful too. If we imagine that philosophies and worldviews are paintings
that can hang side by side in the gallery of truth, we are given a refreshing
and liberating and open ended sense of truth. But that doesn't mean that all
painters are equal. That doesn't mean we should stop distinguishing the good
paintings from the bad ones. If the word "truth" has any meaning, then most
paintings won't be good enough to hang in the gallery. They'll rightly go in
your library or attic or even to the dump. If "truth" is a species of the good,
if "truth" is the highest form of static quality, then it has to be excellent.
It has to be the best you can do in the way of belief. So yes, let us be
pluralists about truth. But let's not be too promiscuous, eh? Let us be
pragmatists about the truth, but not tasteless gourmonds.
Burp.
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
