Why would you wonder if it is the truth when you've already decided that truth
is relative? It is certainly true for him. The only question is whether it is
true for you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:39 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Steve and Mark,
As I began reading
http://xkcd.com/386/
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 23, 2011, at 4:49 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Steve,
Wow! There's something to be said for the speed at which one can acquire an
ebook. After reading the Introduction, my intuition is that I am going to
enjoy this book, as I
Ron:
Why is it so hard to understand that linguistic standards just as practice
standards
justify our truth claims through value?
Steve:
Not sure if I agree or disagree. What do you mean?
Ron:
Why is it so difficult to see that the good
IS a trans cultural ahistorical justification of
Dan:
But in a sense, in the classical dilemma, they are linked.
Steve:
Right. This is dennett's point as well. If actions didn't have predictable
results, freedom to choose would be pointless.
Dan comments:
The way I read this, the switch from causality to value does not
I know full well and never said that DMb believes in an omniscient superbeing.
My point of course is that I can't see why anyone who does not believe in such
a being would think predetermination is a real issue.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Frank, you are some kinda genius. How did you come to understand
Pirsig so well? What is your story?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Frank Booth frankboot...@yahoo.com wrote:
2) do you accept the 4 levels plus the code of art as comprising
everything there is?
[FB]
Hi Matt,
Steve said:
...
For example, a mother cries with a smile on her face as
she consoles her daughter who has just had her heart
broken for the first time. Everything is wrong in the world,
but will get better. Everything always is exactly as it
should be.
Matt:
Ah--interesting. But
Hi Matt,
... i tend to think
that, just like leibniz trying to fit evil into the truism of the
perfection of god, i tend to think it's best to stand aside
from thinking of anything as a perfection, as opposed to a
perfecting, a good sense which can be--but is not the
only--sense to be attached
Hi Matt,
Steve said:
Small self can tell a story about the evolution of value
patterns to give evidence that the world already has
gotten better than it once was which gives me hope for
the future, but for Big Self there is always only now in
all its perfect perfectingness.
...
For example, a
Hi Gav,
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:00 AM, gav wrote:
wow! brilliant post steve - important!
Thanks!
faith is about trust - trust in oneself and the whole shebang. it
is not about hope really - for hope implies a hope that things will
turn out okay - faith accepts that even if things
Hi All,
I was thinking about Boromir of Lord of the Rings. He was the great
warrior from Gondor who betrayed the Fellowship and tried to steal
the ring from Frodo causing Frodo to flea and continue the quest
alone joined only by Sam.
Boromir's Journey was the failure of the Hero's
of faith and is not to say that any particular
fact or facts are true.
Best,
Steve
Marsha
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steve
Peterson
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:55 PM
“Steve Peterson” wrote:
snip
If belief is a habit of action, as the pragmatists say, is all action
best described as some belief? Is faith--the aspect of faith that
does not concern factual belief--something that could benefit from a
pragmatist's re-describing now that religion fails to speak
Hi Bo,
On Sep 4, 2009, at 3:47 AM, skut...@online.no wrote:
Hi Steve
2 Sep. you wrote:
I completely agree that it sounds very strange to say that the
intellectual level is a single fact/value rather than the
collection of
ALL intellectual patterns of value.
Bo:
Do you find it strange
Hi Marsha,
Bo's SOL is not something with which I agree, or disagree, for I do not
fully understand it. I agree with Bo primarily on two issues: 1) that
the
Intellectual Level should be understood as the subject/object level,
and 2)
that the MoQ's dynamic/static point-of-view is best
Hi Ron, (Marsha,)
On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:32 PM, X Acto wrote:
In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true
everywhere,
independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true
always
and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact
is
Hi Marsha,
You mentioned that the only opinion you cared about with regard to Bo's
SOL interpretation is RMP's. In fact, as Bo well knows, Pirsig did
rule on the issue and not at all favorably to Bo's interpretation.
The following is from Lila's Child:
Bodvar:
Gentlemen! I must hasten to
Hi Platt,
Right. For me Quality, beauty is there all the time, all around us,
in the
trees, the earth, the sky, the emptiness of space. It is there
waiting for
us to rejoin it. At death it is as if we move from one side of our
senses to
the other, from the highly filtered, highly processed
Hi Craig,
[Steve]
The MOQ perspective as I understand it makes it impossible
to imagine being out of touch with reality since experience
IS reality.
1) Experience is reality.
2) It is impossible to be out of touch with experience.
3) :. It is impossible to be out of touch with reality.
OR
Hi Platt,
Right. For me Quality, beauty is there all the time, all around us,
in the
trees, the earth, the sky, the emptiness of space. It is there
waiting for
us to rejoin it. At death it is as if we move from one side of our
senses to
the other, from the highly filtered, highly
Matt:
_The MoQ_ has no entity outside of Pirsig: it is _his_ philosophy,
_his_ writing. For Pirsig, or anyone, to say that the MoQ recognizes
it's own contingency, or that it will itself be transcended, is just
to say that _Pirsig_ is a finite, historically situated being. It is
just to
are discussing.
I don't feel that the idea is to escape or free ourselves but to extend
and expand.
-Ron
- Original Message
From: Steve Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:15:39 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
On Aug 27, 2009, at 1:26 PM, X Acto wrote:
See, I think this was Daves beef,
Rorty did'nt have betterness and value
to support his claims so his ideas were
colored as a kind of relativism.
Hi Ron,
Pirsig doesn't have any sort of copyright on betterness.
From Rorty's Philosophy and Social
Hi DMB,
Steve said:
To say that Rorty is trapped within...analogues sets up an
appearance-reality problem that Rorty would deny.
dmb says:
No, it does not set up the appearance-reality distinction. The
appearance-reality distinction is within the analogues. If
experience IS reality, as
Hi Ron,
Don't believe the hype! Though Dave has been trying to portray
Rorty's view of truth as intersubjective agreement, that is not at
all what Rorty means by truth. Rorty just doesn't think that there is
anything that we will learn about truth once we understand how to use
the word
Hi Ron,
I do believe that the MoQ does provide a contextual framework for
the human expereince
Which promotes an understanding of relationships that do not draw
apon cultural terms
of agreement but a much larger context of four static patterns of
Quality which may be
applied to and in,
Hi Ron,
Steve,
I thought the premise behind the 4 levels was not only better
understanding
but
the breaking of the paralysis of cultural relativism, and
relativism in general,
I got the feeling throughout Lila that that was the problem western
society faced.
and the arguement
Hi Ron,
Steve quotes Pirsig:
I’ve concluded that the biggest improvement I could make in the
MOQ would be to block the
notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral
problem in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The image
in my mind as I wrote it was of a large
Hi DMB:
dmb says:
It's pretty safe to say that Pirsig would agree that the search for
the essence of Truth and Reality, whatever that means, is futile.
Steve:
I'm reminded of Pirsig's pursuit of the Ghost of Reason, his attempt
to show that the essence of reason is something other than
Hi John,
John:
What is SOM? I've said before that it is a values-free
metaphysics, but is
that ultimately true in people's lives? Do people honestly live
their life
with no value to guide them? Of course not. Such would be an
insanity.
Since reason tells them there are no values, they
Hi DMB,
Steve said:
...Cindy Sherman believes that the role of the artist in society is to
expose its myths. Later I read Joseph Campbell who wrote that the role
of the artist is to create myths. I realize that these two people have
a very different idea of myth. Sherman meant that the
Hi Bo,
Steve and All.
21 Aug. you wrote:
I wasn't saying that a moral claim is no different from a statement
of mathematical fact. What I was suggesting is that there is no
difference in what we mean by the word 'true' in the sentences it
is true that slavery is wrong and it is true that
On Aug 22, 2009, at 9:49 AM, MarshaV wrote:
Hi Steve,
Do you have one universal definition of 'slavery'?
Marsha
Hi Marsha,
I could never give a universal definition of slavery or any word. I
think I could give a definition that we both could agree upon, but I
don't think it would be
Hi DMB,
Steve said to dmb:
I wasn't saying that a moral claim is no different from a statement of
mathematical fact. What I was suggesting is that there is no
difference in what we mean by the word 'true' in the sentences it is
true that slavery is wrong and it is true that 2+2=4.
Hi DMB,
dmb says:
... Let's say the real issue is just as Rorty says. In this case, if
you think our culture, purposes or intuitions CAN be supported by
something more than conversation...Anyway, if we accept Rorty's notion
of the real issue then relativism is not the belief that all
Hi DMB,
DMB:
Like I've been trying to explain, the radical empiricist thinks there
is another way to support or purposes and intuitions, namely
experience. Experience is the test of truth, not conversation. This
doesn't give us any kind of absolute truth and here truth is just an
Hi Marsha, DMB,
Do you believe that moral assertions can have truth-value? For example,
do you see statements like slavery is evil as either true or false in
the same way that assertions of fact such as 2 is the smallest prime
number is either true or false?
If you take X to be some such
Hi DMB,
On Aug 20, 2009, at 6:40 PM, david buchanan wrote:
I don't understand this. How can Bob be justified in believing
what is not true? How can a moral claim about the dignity human
beings be compared to a mathematical definition? I think you're
using some unexplained distinctions
Hi Marsha,
I wasn't setting up a trap or anything, but I can see how it could
look like I was trying to do some Socratic B.S. I was really just
trying to help clarify what it is we are talking about.
I think dancing is just fine. Can you think of doing philosophy as
dancing? Among guys
Hi DMB,
When I raised the question about ironism, I was wondering how well
Pirsig's philosophy stands up to Rorty's critiques of systems, and I
look forward to rereading Lila in light of what I've read from Rorty to
imagine what Rorty might have thought of Pirsig. I think it will be
Hi Platt,
Personally I view consciousness along the lines of Ham's value
sensibility (without Ham's metaphysics) or, as I prefer, aesthetic
sensibility. I also think of such sensibility as the ground of being
and creator of the world. Since we are part of that creation, we
have access to it by
Hi DMB,
Steve said to dmb:
I don't know how to settle a pissing match between the contemporary
classical pragmatists' radical empiricism, Rorty's panrelationalism,
and Pirsig's Quality to see who has rejected SOM most flamboyantly,
and I don't think it matters. None of these are SOMists
On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:26 AM, MarshaV wrote:
Steve,
Once again, what is your definition of relativism?
Marsha
Hi Marsha,
I would like to see the term dropped from our vocabulary in part
because it is so unclear what anybody means by the term and part
because I'd like to see SOM, the
Rorty says:
Relativism is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or
perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this
view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find
anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic
are
Hi Marsha,
On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:00 AM, MarshaV wrote:
Recently read, 'Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric
Refigured', I'm a
relativist and proud, and what you think I should or shouldn't call
myself
has little impact on what I do or do not call myself, especially
since you
will
On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:18 AM, MarshaV wrote:
Rorty says? You must be kidding! Has Rorty become King of the
World? Has
Rorty replaced Wikipedia?
Steve:
You keep asking for a definition of relativism, and I keep trying to
give you some.
Something about my style really seems to
] On Behalf Of Steve
Peterson
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:55 PM
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: [MD] mp3
Hi all,
Someone mentioned having an mp3 version of Lila. I was able to
purchase ZAMM at audible.com, but I can't find a CD or mp3 version of
Lila. Any suggestions?
Best,
Steve
Hi Marsha,
Marsha:
... To me 'Man is the measure of all
things.' means that Protagoras, and the early Sophists, were
relativists and
RMP agrees with them. Not the source of all things, but the
measurer of
all things, meaning measured relative to their experience of them,
participators.
Hi Marsha,
What SOM premise does it 'imply' accepting?
It's the same issue that started the whole thing for Pirsig. The
question of whether values are subjective or objective is the same as
asking whether morality is relative or absolute. Pirsig denied this
distinction as a false
Hi Marsha,
First, I do not think we have access to 'The Way Things Really
Are'. The
measuring event is the process that creates self and object, and it is
relative to that particular event. Static patterns of value are
relative an
experience.
To characterize our situation as not having
Hi DMB,
Steve said to Marsha:
I think we should always defend ourselves against the charge of
relativism since it is used as an epithet and a way of dismissing
someone without having to address their arguments.
dmb says:
I think you're being unfair here. While it's certainly possible to
Hi DMB,
Steve said to dmb:
The sorts of things that such philosophers who want to engage Rorty
often say is that Rorty leaves himself open to the charge of
relativism rather than arguing that Rorty is actually endorsing
relativism. I would think that any pragmatist shouldn't be
Hi DMB,
Steve said:
I don't know about Sandy [Dr. Rosenthal], but I think you are
demonstrating a strange allergy to Rorty. In other words, for some
reason that I can't figure out you seem to have an over-active
immune system when it comes to him. For example, for someone who
sees
Hi DMB,
Steve replied:
I suppose the issue has something to do with the linguistic turn.
While the classical and neo-classical pragmatists talk about
experience. Rorty focuses on language. I'd be interested in hearing
your take on the linguistic turn and what is lost in taking this turn.
Hi all,
Someone mentioned having an mp3 version of Lila. I was able to
purchase ZAMM at audible.com, but I can't find a CD or mp3 version of
Lila. Any suggestions?
Best,
Steve
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
Hi DMB,
Steve said:
I agree that Pirsig often seems to use metaphysics that way, and if
that is what we always mean by metaphysics, it is indeed impossible
to argue about having one. But then we can still ask, do we need to
model our thinking about knowledge on vision at all? Do we have
HI DMB,
Steve said:
I'm wondering amount the image of the person selecting among paintings
in a gallery. If a person recognizes the contingency of all
metaphysical systems and sees herself in the position of selecting
among various philosophical systems with no meta-method for choosing
Hi Matt, John, DMB, all
you said:
I would just add that Steve's puzzlement on why metaphysics
is impossible to avoid relies on a subtle disparity between
what Steve would like to call metaphysics (following more in
line with Rorty's usage) and what John would like to call
metaphysics
Hi DMB,
dmb said:
Yea, maybe that's what it means to be ironic about metaphysics. The
ironist holds a metaphysical view that says there is no way to
choose a metaphysical view.
Steve replied:
I don't understand the claims that metaphysics is unavoidable. Why
must we call not seeing a
On Aug 9, 2009, at 8:17 PM, John Carl wrote:
Yes. Everyone who has a concept of their own existence has a
metaphysic.
Hi All,
I'm wondering amount the image of the person selecting among paintings
in a gallery. If a person recognizes the contingency of all
metaphysical systems and sees
Hi DMB, Gav, John, Bo,
I waited for Matt to weigh in, but it looks like he's staying out of
this one.
Steve said:
What we would need to adopt any of these systems and what no one has
ever invented is a method that stands outside of metaphysics that
tells us how to choose between such
Hi All,
Does everyone have a metaphysics whether they know it or not?
Is it possible to not make metaphysical assumptions?
Best,
Leela
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Hi DMB,
I feel like I've done a disservice to Rorty for not explaining more
about what I'm getting at with these questions, but I was hoping that
others could upack Rorty's ironism better than I could.
The issue I wanted to get to is this: If you talk to a materialist, she
can give you a
Hi all,
What is metaphysics? Does everyone have a metaphysics? Or can people
get by without being metaphysicians?
Rorty:
I shall define an ironist as someone who fulfills three
conditions: (1) She has radical and continuing doubts about the final
vocabulary she currently uses, because
Hi Matt,
Pirsig distinguished those studying the history of philosophy from
those pursuing the answers to philosophical questions. You don't like
to distinguish between two types of people, but do you see two
different activities in philosophy and philosophology? One is inquiry
into
Hi Bo,
Steve:
...[Wim] considered Pirsig's idea of static latching which brought
him to
thinking about how the different types of patterns are latched or
maintained. Biological patterns are maintained through DNA. Social
patterns are maintained through unconscious copying of behavior.
Hi Matt,
DMB said:
Well, first of all, you might want to separate the empirical claims
from the historical, evolutionary claims. The sense of better and
worse is something that occurs in the moment of experience while
the survivors are the best products of that primary sense of
Hi Platt,
I like your definition of a strong individual as one who fights
against
prevailing social standards and conventional wisdom and keeps fighting
regardless of powerful forces arrayed against her. Such an individual
who flashes in my mind is Sarah Palin who is anathema to left-wing
Hi Craig,
[Steve]
DQ as pre-intellectual makes sense from the empirical perspective
where time itself is not a given but derived from experience. From
this perspective ideas come first
This seems contradictory. If the empirical perspective is
“pre-intellectual”, then how can it be a
Hi Craig,
[Steve]
DQ as pre-intellectual makes sense from the empirical perspective
where time itself is not a given but derived from experience. From
this perspective ideas come first
[Craig, previously]
This seems contradictory. If the empirical perspective is
“pre-intellectual”, then
Hi DMB, all,
On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:45 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb said:
Better and worse are just two sides of the same coin. It's DQ that
gets you off the hot stove. One could say it was worse on the stove
or one could say it was better off the stove. Either way, it means
the same
Hi Krimmel,
---
[Krimel inserts:]
First Dave, you have it backwards. DQ is not what gets you off the
stove.
That would be SQ. Our response to pain; damage to our tissue; is
reflexive.
Our responce is similar in many respects to the response of any
Hi John, (all)
You've been talking about how to distinguish types of patterns of
values. I want to offer my thoughts on the matter. A long lost MOQist
named Wim made a suggestion that helped me greatly. He considered
Pirsig's idea of static latching which brought him to thinking about
Hi Bo, DMB,
On Jul 5, 2009, at 3:48 AM, skut...@online.no wrote:
Dear David.
3 July you said:.
One doesn't need to deduce the discrepancy between concepts and
reality from the DQ/sq distinction because that distinction and the
discrepancy are exactly the same thing. Concepts are static
Hi Bo,
Well you ignore all
my arguments and bring a LC quote:...
Steve:
I don't mean to ignore your arguments. But it seems like you are
using the MOQ language so differently from the way I am that it's
hard for me to find a point of entry to argue with you.
Bo:
What the heck has the
Hi Krimel,
On Jul 5, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Krimel wrote:
Steve:
I wasn't trying to bring in any new controversy. I was just defending
DMB's claim that DQ/sq amounts to reality/concept where reality
simply refers to the conceptually unknown.
[Krimel]
Just to jump in and clarify something here. To
Hi Ham,
You said:
For some time now I have been trying to advance the concept that
Quality (i.e., Value) is subjective rather than universal in nature.
Steve:
This statement represents a profound misunderstanding of Pirsig. I
wonder at how someone could have participated for so long on this
the end of purely abstract philosophy at least.
but yes in a way most academic philosophy is becoming redundant as the
existential takes precedence over the 'essential' (by which i mean the
illogical idea of immutable 'real' laws, facts etc that are
ontologically prior to experience).
the
Hi Paul,
Ok, now I get it. I didn't mean to be at all disparaging. I haven't
even read much of what you posted. I just noticed that it didn't
sound anything like the guy who used to post here with the same name.
Regards,
Steve
On May 2, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Paul Turner wrote:
Steve
My
Paul:
Or whatever your real name is:
I'm willing to believe that people can change quite dramatically in a
relatively short time. But I have to say that I'm skeptical about your
identity. I mean, it looks like somebody has highjacked my friend's
name for purposes my friend would not much
Hi All,
The MOQ takes an evolutionary view, which means that besides the line
drawing problem in fetal development for defining humanity leading the
absolutists to draw the line the only place they can, at the moment of
conception, there is also the problem of deciding at what point in
human
MP:
The only rights we have, and can rightly say we should be allowed to
have are
already in there; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Steve:
It specifically says that there are other rights not enumerated. (And
it doesn't say life, liberty...)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo,
Hi MP, Arlo,
[Michael]
Arlo, if we can continue on this line and tone, I would very much
appreciate it and am willing and eager to drop cold all the rest of
the opinionated back and forth with you or anyone else to do so.Yours
is exactly my reaction to Steve's statement as well. It sure is
Hi All,
In considering the MOQ's take on the abortion issue it may be helpful
to consider he MOQ's understanding of humanity. A human being is a
forest of patterns of all four types. A biological homo sapien is not
automatically human just for having the right DNA. A homo sapien
without any
Hi MP,
You don't like beliefs based on faith being defined in contrast to
beliefs based on evidence
because you think evidence is a loaded word. How about experience?
What definition of the word faith would you prefer to use for this
discussion?
Best,
Steve
Moq_Discuss mailing list
MP:
MP: Absolutely. I'm just saying that the (nb: scientific/intellectual)
inquiry,
challenge and debate you propose can only go so far up the theistic
construct
chain because it is a specific (nb: scientific/intellectual) language
that becomes
more and more irrelevant the closer you get to
Hi DMB, Krimel, all
I was actually just working on my next post for my blog on mystical
experience.
DMB:
And so what is the mystical experience, exactly? Well, you can't say
in advance what it will be like. That's what makes it fresh and
original. That's what makes it Dynamic as opposed to
your thoughtful remarks.
Steve Peterson wrote:
First of all, the blog I am working on is not aimed directly at
convincing theists that they have a bunch of wacky beliefs that we'd
all be better off if they dropped. That is indirectly part of my
goal,
but the blog is not to attract theists
Hi Platt,
Steve:
The idea is to break the taboo in the US of questioning
someone's beliefs. All we are talking about is applying the same
conversational pressures to religious beliefs as we would to
someone's
beliefs about leprechauns, government bailouts, the best laundry
detergent, and
Hi Platt,
Platt:
I agree. If someone finds value in believing in God, leprechauns or a
rabbit's foot, who is to say they are wrong other than those who
believe
everyone should believe what they believe and try to force their
beliefs on
others by ridicule, intimidation or at the point of a
Hi Platt,
Steve:
The idea is to break the taboo in the US of questioning
someone's beliefs. All we are talking about is applying the same
conversational pressures to religious beliefs as we would to someone's
beliefs about leprechauns, government bailouts, the best laundry
detergent, and
Hi Platt,
Steve P:
First of all, the blog I am working on is not aimed directly at
convincing theists that they have a bunch of wacky beliefs that we'd
all be better off if they dropped. That is indirectly part of my goal,
but the blog is not to attract theists to the discussion. I want to
Hi Ham, DMB, All,
Steve said to Ham:...You can accept it and see where it takes you, or
you can leave it be. This forum is concerned with seeing where this
intellectual postulate takes us. If you are unwilling to accept it for
the sake of argument and at least try to understand what Pirsig
Hi Ian, Marsha,
Welcome to the blogoshpere Leela.
That's pretty much the line I take too, so I'd have no problem linking
or helping anyway I can.
The anonymity can't last once discussion gets serious, but it's good
to have the anonyous handle whilst you're in blogging mode.
Good luck - the one
Hi Mel,
You seem to be arguing for Stephen Jay Gould's notion of
non-overlapping magisteria or NOMA. What I couldn't figure out from
your post is what these two different projects are. It was clear that
you see science as our best attempt at honest inquiry, but what is it
that you see
Hi Michael,
Steve Peterson wrote:
What do you think? Do you think you can tell a good story of hope for
a
better future that doesn't include lies about virgin births and
resurrections?
Michael:
Just thinking out loud here, perhaps you'd get a better reception in
claiming a
path
Hi All,
I'm starting a blog to challenge the SOM materialism of atheists in
favor of pragmatism. I'm using the name Leela (which is how I can't
stop mentally pronouncing Lila) for some anonymity--don't rat me out!
I'm looking for other contributers if this project sounds interesting
to you.
Hi Ham,
You said:
An ontology that postulates Value as the ground or primary source is
illogical because it presupposes man's existence, if not also
value-preferring objects. What you end up with is a philosophy with
a false epistemology and no metaphysical foundation.
Steve:
It would be
Hi Ham,
Quality as a monism is an intellectual postulate. You can accept it and
see where it takes you, or you can leave it be. This forum is concerned
with seeing where this intellectual postulate takes us. If you are
unwilling to accept it for the sake of argument and at least try to
Bo:
Regarding truth I wonder what the problem is? Need it any
particular definition beyond the one given by the MOQ? The early
Greek thinkers' search for eternal principle that ended with the
greatest principle of them all TRUTH. In a SOL interpretation this
was intellect emerging from the old
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
