Re: More Buy some Q-tips.

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

Joan Opyr wrote:

> >So, I guess I'm joining in with the rest of the disciples and adding my
> >voice to the chorus, "by what standard?"
>
> This question is nearly as tired as that backgammon/checkers metaphor.
> Several people on this list have already answered it in several different
> ways. . . By our own lights.  And--here's the part that
> will require some ear-cleaning--this is the same standard everyone uses,
> including disciples of Jesus Christ.  How can I say such a thing?  Easy:
you
> choose your sect, your minister, and your preferred translation of your
> preferred sacred text.  No doubt you believe that you take your orders
> directly from on high.  Oddly enough, that's where I get my orders, too,
but
> I get them via The Tanakh, not the Christian bible.  Others get theirs
from
> the Koran, from the Tao Ti Ching, from the Upanishads, from the Rig Veda,
or
> from time spent meditating in Joshua Tree State Park.  And that's okay
with
> me.  In fact, it's better than okay--I think it's great.  I don't need the
> world to follow a single monolithic standard anymore than I need it to be
in
> one time zone.  There are as many roads to heaven as there are to
> Washington, DC.  Let's just hope it's less humid.

I know you sincerely think you've answered this question, but you haven't.
All you've done is assumed what you're trying to prove. You assume that the
universe is such a place that only epistemological individualism is true,
and lo and behold, you conclude that epistemological individualism is
true -- there is no monolithic standard. That's just arguing in a little
circle. But try to step outside that individualist paradigm for just a
second: if reality is, say, Trinitarian or Islamic or secular Platonic, then
epistemological individualism is just a passing, historically constructed
fancy. I'm not trying to persuade you of this but only show that banging the
table and saying "individualism" doesn't answer the question about objective
standards. All it says is that there can be no monolithic standard because
reality doesn't allow monolithic standards. But why can't reality allow
monolithic standards? It's no different than someone banging the table and
saying Koran.

To tie this in to the previous discussion on education, it is true that this
epistemological individualism pervades the public schools, and yet we say
they're neutral. It's a neutrality that says no other view than
epistemological individualism can possibly be true; it's a tolerance that
precludes with giant swipes. So ease up on the Q-tips talk; you're talking
across paradigms and keep reimposing your own, which to you sounds like a
reasonable answer.

Doug Jones