Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Robert Eberwein wrote: > Okay Lance. It’s a pleasure to deal with a disagreement so civilly >framed. > I’ll try to respond in kind. I'll assume we've both read Plato, and you >know > I'm not suggesting that *what one perceives* is what is there- - - > > <i don't mean to begrudge your point, but thinking it > <through implies there's an endpoint to the process. > <With this kind of topic i'm not sure one can ever > <fully "think" it through... > > But that’s full circle. by this you mean tautology? if so i agree. > I AM suggesting there is an endpoint. i think it is the case that, at the end of the day, one has to turn out the lights and go to sleep. this implies an endpoint, but *perfection* is not the same thing to me. > > Is it really logical to say that EVERY *take* on a thing is as valid as > every other? maybe, but of course, if we operated this way we'd never get anything done. we have to assume a system of values, based on our personal or group judgement, but i'm less arguing anything on so pragmatic a level; i'm merely pointing out (my personal observation) that a single most excellent solution does not exist outside of a context driven by personal and/or group idiosyncracies. what we judge to be excellent is what we have learned (and agree) is excellent within the framework of our cultural conditioning. it does not exist in nature apart from our minds. > I’ll spare you examples [Vision is a good one]- - they could > all be countered- —I just think not. I think, usually, statistically, the > majority of perceptions are distorted and downright false- and a minority > are closer to an accurate representation. "...william james' philosophy of pragmatism states that it is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. all that the mind can ponder is ideas about reality (whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue)...therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to some absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience..." -paraphrasing gary zukav, *the dancing wu li masters: an overview of the new physics* > <how do you define "absolutely perfect"? is this not relative to your > <impression at that time? does everyone that hears it think so too? <can > your impression ever change? > > Haven’t you experienced that? I sense you have. We all have. It doesn’t >mean > anyone has to agree, but it’s not a cryptic/intellectual point. In music >it > is very often so; like I said: many chords/words could work- - - but one > fits like hand-in-glove. You know it mathematically, emotionally, > physically- - - absolutely. Why should I deny my every > reason/instinct/feeling, and say, *Well, it’s good, but so would a lot of > other chords/words be good*? i'm not suggesting we deny reason, or instinct, or feeling. john cage said, "nothing was lost when everything was given away." i know what i have felt to be something akin to "rightness". but i think it's a matter of degree, relative to a particular time/place/state of being. it's being in the groove, etc. but to put too sharp a point on it by saying it is the *perfect* or absolute thing is giving ourselves (and maybe our egos) too much credit. perhaps this is better left to god :-) > > <explain how a notion of excellence is necessarily at odds with a <view >of > relativity? > > I think the answer is in your sentence already. They’re mutually >exclusive. > Otherwise my *excellent* is your *mediocre* [or *shitty*]. probably not mine, but could be to an inuit walrus hunter... > . and the words > must be, in time, abandoned because they will lose their meaning. meaning evolves; words work to keep up, some grow old and die, new words are born to take their place... > Words > matter. words matter, but there are very likely life forms in this universe that *speak* quite differently than we, and whose values might turn ours upside down. which absolutes will govern then? > But I don’t dispute that my position is even more difficult to defend >than > yours. There is logic in believing that excellence only exists in >relation > to something else. > > But one of us is closer to the [dreaded] Truth- - - i'm not afraid of truth, but will we know it when we see it? best, lance g.