[MD] How To Be A Philosopher

[118]

Yes Marsha,
I was referring to the oracles in general.  As you know there were generations of oracles at Delphi.  There were also offshoots of the oracle phenomenon in other places.  Many of them were probably bogus. 

I recently read a book which was an account of the most recent geological analysis of Delphi.  It showed that there are indeed fault lines which could have released gasses.  Of course this is contrary to the French statement that the stories about Delphi were simply made up.  I would give you the name of the book but I returned it to the library.  I am sure a Google search would find it.

You may just think that this Delphic oracle stuff is nonsense, but that would be because of your relative position to this information.  Maybe some relative positions have higher quality than others.  That is a relative statement of course since everything is relative, meaning that there is no direction only confusion.  For if everything was relative nothing would stand out, especially evolution (since that is directional and not relative).  No levels in Relativism, no MoQ.

Relativism seems very fuzzy and cannot make a decision one way or the other, except to say "it's all good!".  I guess that is relative to those who propose Relativism.  It used to be called "wishy-washy", now we are simply products of our environment and genetics.  Will the biggest victim please stand up?  The government has got lots of money to give to you.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Dec 29, 2011, at 12:03 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> Oracles?  It was the Pythia, the Delphic oracle, who gave Socrates the Good news...
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 2:50 AM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> Yes, Socrates was a big fan of the Oracles.  He had reason to be, they could foretell.  However, before long Western Truth took over, and everything became a matter of measurement.  We lost a great deal with our "advances".  Of course in this day and age, the oracles cannot exist, not because they could not foretell, but because such foretelling requires a different approach to reality.  We gained something but lost something.  We have new rules, but they are not better than those of old, just different.  I suppose that our reality is relative (heh, heh).  Of course Socrates was much smarter than any of us, so I would take his opinion over some current thinker.
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 3:32 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Ian,
>>> 
>>> This, I think, is from the same issue of PHILOSOPHY NOW, with issue number 5. given:
>>> 
>>> http://www.philosophynow.org/issue81/How_To_Be_A_Philosopher?ref=list 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> How To Be A Philosopher
>>> ---
>>> Ian Ravenscroft philosophizes about philosophizing.
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> 5. What to Think About
>>> ... According to one story, Socrates accepted the Delphic Oracle’s pronouncement that he was the wisest of men only after he realized that his wisdom consisted in appreciating the depth of his ignorance. 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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