[MD] suspended in language

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Steve]
I'm not sure what you mean by "an absolute stance." I don't think 
that there is any foundation from which to make a claim that no one 
will ever provide us with a foundation for justifying all our truth claims.

[Arlo]
Platt is bemused by recursive language paradoxes, and for some reason 
thinks that pointing out that "no one will ever..." is itself an 
absolute statement, which it denies, is some sort of "gotcha!".

There are countless examples of how this could be phrased. "There are 
no absolutes" is an absolute statement that becomes paradoxical when 
it attempts to contain itself. But whereas for Platt this is proof 
that absolutes exist, it is really just foundational incompleteness 
inherent to the very act of symbolic activity.

We have then an infinite series, (((((There are no absolutes) 
including this statement) including this statement) including this 
statement)...), which is really the best we can do. Most people can 
deal with the inherent paradoxicality of recursive language, but 
apparently it is still something Platt has not been able to wrap his 
head around. Like poor Norman from I, Mudd he struggles with this... 
let's hope his neural capacitors don't short out on him...

[Platt asked Steve]
Finally, do you agree with Pirsig's assertion: "Cultures can be 
graded and judged morally according to their contribution to the 
evolution of life." (Lila, 24)

[Arlo]
I always find it fascinating that those who are most motivated to 
"grade" things, are those that would always rank themselves "number one".

Nonetheless, this assertion is quite problematic, as even something 
like "American culture" or "Chinese culture" rests of generalizations 
that may or may be representative of local communities. Is life in 
Laramie, Wyoming "American culture" or is life in the Bronx?  Is 
there any non-American culture that Platt would rank higher than his 
own in any capacity? Is "Hispanic culture" better in some regards? 
What about "Lakota culture"? Are we ranking blanket statements about 
cultures on this large scale, or are we "grading" specific attributes 
we assign to various cultures? For example, would we give "Hispanic 
culture" an "A" for familial closeness and "American culture" a "C"? 
Does this generalize too much?

And what is the purpose? What award are some striving to give 
themselves? If we say "Hispanic culture is morally superior to 
Icelandic culture", what does this statement do? Should we consider 
Icelanders inferior people until they "shape up and become more like 
Hispanics"? Do we dismiss whatever an Icelander may do as "pfff.. 
that's just those inferior people from that faraway place"? Does it 
only matter in cases of extremes, like justifying war against Nazi 
Germany? Or is it just an excuse to pat ourselves on our back and get 
all warm and fuzzy over how morally superior WE are to the inferior 
hordes of OTHERS?  When, how and why should we "grade cultures"?