I thought that’s what you wanted?
(sorry – have a beer and think of your family. Takes the sting tight out.)
As with most others, the semantic argument is a bit over my head. However, remembering (perhaps inaccurately) that erislover is in the Boston area, I figured I’d point him in this direction so perhaps I could witness the continuation of this discussion in person, done correctly (i.e. over beer). Also, 'cause he seems like an interesting guy that I’d like to meet.
I would just like to say that this has been a thing of beauty. I absolutely mean that.
Ah – a typo. In that case please ignore the part where I called this position idiotic.
Not precisely. The criteria cannot be reasonably demonstrated to have been met. This is not the same as saying that the idea does not exist. Here’s another example for you to ignore:[ul]
[li]An absolute moral precept is one which exists in every moral system and is thus independent of any particular moral frame. That statement is certainly expressable from a relativistic morality.[/li][li]Quality A is an absolute moral precept. This statement cannot be reasonably asserted under moral relativism.[/ul][/li]
This is simply wrong. See above. See also the responses to your examples of absolute zero, absolute alcohol, etc. which you have thus far ignored.
No, we do not. We have standards of measurement within each frame. Since you have made this particular claim twice, I will ask you to provide me a reference work on general relativity which inludes the terms “perfect ruler” or “absolute length”.
No. We do not. You insist on using the phrase “absolute morals” to mean “morals”.
I have no idea why you have such a fetishistic attachment to word which you have emptied of meaning. It strikes me (as I seem to recall saying before) as bizzarre. Then again, I suffer from this strange coimpulsion to actually invest words with meaning before using them over and over. (Well, except when I talk to Baby Mundi. Is that the answer? Shall I start adopting a new vocabulary of {b]erl-talk**? Hey, boo boo booo boo babe. Hey-hey-hey–lo. Hey-lo. Boo boo bay bee.)
What’s that? Those words don’t mean anything? Oh yeah – HEY BOO BOO BOO BABE. HEY-HEY-HEY-LO. HEY-LO. BOO BOO BAY BEE.
No. The definition of absolute does not have to change. See, the rest of teh world is not in the habit of changing how they use words just so they can pronounce their favorite syllables in inappropriate contexts. Apparently, you began this investigation with the axiom: erl must have a way to claim absolute morality. In order to satisfy this axiom, you are willing to reduce the adjective you treasure to a meaningless placekeeper.
Let me say that again: meaningless. Devoid of semantic content. You do not change the meaning of absolute, you remove the meaning from absolute. In erlish, it is impossible for anything to not be absolute.
Nope – they are documents recording the consensual meanings of words. Maybe you should publish an erlish dictionary. It would be an absolute[sup]erl[/sup] ruler. Until you changed your mind about what a word mean, of course. But then you could write a new absolutely[sup]erl[/sup] correct dictionary.
Fuck indeed.
I make lots of typos, but this one actually changes teh meaning.
The “no” is an editing error. The example should read:
[li]I cannot prove that erl logic is the most twisted misconception of reason on this board.[/li]That does not mean a more convoluted abortion of rationality exists.
I’ve read this thread three times now.
At the end of each reading, my brain responds with the same thing: “What in the gibbering blue fuck was that?”
I really would like to take sides here, but it’s hard telling what the sides are.
But I do have the feeling that at least one person here is being an absolute stick-in-the-mud.
Who? I have absolutely no idea. 
In the meantime, I’ll just have some more popcorn and see if William Safire is on speed-dial.
Well, then I think it is necessary to say that for most English speakers
language is not bound inside a strict framework. That is, in our day to day
conversations we don’t make qualifications like “inside my frame” or “under
the stipulations of non-perception” or “given that we accept limits on human
perception.” These sorts of things just don’t apply to our everyday
conversations.
Top-- Us. No judgements.
First break: Moral relativism vs moral absolutism
Sub break: moral absolutism: religious-style arguments(arbitrarily precise
perception) vs human arguments (limited perception)
Second break: Moral Relativism: relative morals vs absolute morals
In a “Newtonian” moral system we break after the first schism, and then come
to the point where we must ask ourselves, "true, an absolute system does
exist, but can we perceive it?
In a “Relativistic” moral system we break after the first point and ask,
“What degree of confidence do we have?”
And here we are. At each step, the meaning of “morality” has been subtly
adjusted. At first, it was simply “A measure of right and wrong.” Then we
come to a break. Depending on the path we took, the qualification would be
“A measure of right and wrong for a person’s reference frame” or “…for all
persons at all times.” The meaning subtly changed because certain
qualifications were necessarily added onto it.
Now, the mapping of “length” to “confidence of a moral decision” is a decent
one. In GR, length as a quality of something changes with respect to the
frame. To say something is “three inches” carries with it, implicitly, the
idea that it is “three inches from this frame.” Absolutely. No argument.
It is a perfect measurement from that frame. It is free from
imperfections from that frame. That qualification is necessarily
tacked on to all quantifiers after we made an assumption.
GR does not forbid a translation of events into other frames. That is, we
may certainly ask how a collapsing star would look from the reference of a
person standing on the surface, or from a person a mile away.
This is where the analogy ends, though, because you have explicitly stated
that we cannot share frames. I cannot explicitly translate my
“moral ruler” into your frame because I cannot know your frame. My ruler is
the only fucking ruler in existence. In fact, even to attempt to grasp your
concept of a moral ruler involves using mine to do it.
In moral relativity, confidence becomes absolute again for this reason.
“This is how I’ve defined morality with respect to the frame which is the
only frame I can experience.” Period. You’ve defined it that way. It is
an absolute standard–say it with me–from within that frame.
Now, again, I could see your persistent use of “absolute” as “perfect”
without qualifications if we hadn’t made the split in the first place. But
then we wouldn’t be talking about moral relativity. Since we have, it must
change. I could still see your use of the word “absolute” as “perfect” if
we allowed shared frames with which to compare different standards and see
that, indeed, there are better systems out there (better frames) and
perhaps there is a best. That is, we would be allowed to postulate a
“perfect” frame. But since we cannot experience other’s frames I don’t see
that such a word is justified to maintain that meaning. It must be
qualified. “Perfect as is possible from within the frame.” Note, THE
frame. You’ve locked me out from all others. note also, “perfect” without
the qualification has no meaning. The only way perfect does have meaning is
with that qualification. Thus, anyone using the word “perfect” or
“absolute”, as the case may be, must be implying those qualifications. This
is how English is spoken; implicit in the general word used is the context
of the fucking conversation. Even regular words like “have” can possess
different meanings. You need the context, otherwise known as the proper
implicit qualifiers, to understand the conversation.
I even went so far as to show the connection between “as good as it gets”
and “perfect” assuming we were in closed frames.
Perfect (from MW):1 a : being entirely without fault or defect : FLAWLESS <a
perfect diamond> b : satisfying all requirements : ACCURATE c :
corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept <a perfect gentleman>
d : faithfully reproducing the original; specifically : LETTER-PERFECT e :
legally valid
So, we will tackle this with our qualifications.
1A: Without fault or defect. Since there is no other standard, this is
true.
1B: The only requirement is that we don’t imagine that we’ve perceived
something from outside our frame. That has been accomplished.
1C: Ideal standards are whatever standards the person sets from within the
frame. So long as we don’t pretend to perceive a frame that requirement has
been met.
1D: There is no original to reproduce; no meaning.
1E: That is, is the moral measurement we’re making consistent with our moral
standards, whatever they may be? Of course; there are no other standards to
use.
As we can see, once we tack on our qualifications, absolute doesn’t quite
have the same meanings anymore. I thought it was clear enough in my
postings that it cannot have the same meaning anymore, but that
apparently wasn’t clear enough.
Now, I would specifically like to address the definition I used in the GD
thread, “free of imperfection.” An imperfection would be any thing which
doesn’t allow for something to be perfect. We’ve looked at perfect above;
what sort of thing would invalidate our meaning of perfect (i.e.- absolute,
since that is the sense we’re using it) morality. As mentioned:
[li] We would attempt to perceive an external reference frame.[/li][li] We would create, within one frame, multiple standards for the same[/li]measurement/value judgement.
[li] We would, even after ignoring the above, create multiple standards and[/li]use different parts of each to form a judgement.
The important thing here isn’t that no other standard exists, but that no
other can be used. We may postulate what happens inside a black hole. We
can’t expect our earthly frame to correlate. I may postulate that a better
frame exists when viewed by someone else, but I can’t expect that to
correlate. The only way it could correlate is if it was the same frame, in
which case we’d be the same person, and so there would be no new standard.
Any attempt to use the non-qualified meaning of absolute in a very
qualified conversation is going so far outside experience that I am
completely dumbfounded as to why you continue to do it. It doesn’t stand
with past discussions, it doesn’t stand with the current discussion.
While I was preparing this, I find the following:
Exists in every moral frame? That makes it free from error? Perhaps if, by perfect, you mean applicable to every reference frame. I don’t think that follows the definition either.
Oh… for christ sakes! An argument between two people who type 20 paragraphs per post. This thread will be four pages and 8 posts.
::grabs absoulute vodka bottle and runs::
This, obviously, cannot be the case. Reference Wittgenstein’s Tractatus logico-philosophius, third main thesis.
A pattern has developed.
[li] Erl makes a post.[/li][li] I respond in detail to his points.[/li][li] Erl makes a post which largely or entirely ignores the points I raise.[/li][li] I respond in detail to his points.[/li]
I am weak, though, so I will dance one last step.
I don’t mean perfect at all. Free of imperfection was the definition you chose to pretend you followed. My definition, in teh context of moral relativism, was “independent of any limited moral frame”. See, if you actually read and understood English you might have noticed where I wrote: An absolute moral precept is one which exists in every moral system and is thus independent of any particular moral frame. I know it gets confusing, what with being stated plainly and all.
It is a usage consistent with such consensual definitions as:
[li]Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional[/li][li]Unqualified in extent or degree; total[/li]
Enough. My patience with evasion is exhausted. I will now ask a simple and direct question. Erl may answer it or erl may jolly well fuck off and continue self-stimming to the songs of the scarecrows in his brain.
What is the difference, in erl-speak, between the following statements:[ul]
[li]Moral reference frames are bounded, and erl has a system of morals.[/li]Moral reference frames are bounded, and erl has an absolute system of morals.[/ul]
I will both dance with the scarecrows in my brain and respond.
[quote]
[li]Moral reference frames are bounded, and erl has a system of morals.[/li][li]Moral reference frames are bounded, and erl has an absolute system of morals.[/li][/quote]
Lets not forget:
[li]Moral reference frames are bounded, and erl has a system of absolute morals.[/li][li]There is only one standard of morals per frame, so it can’t be fucking wrong.[/li]
I had a nightmare last night about Jehova’s Witness cops who didn’t age, and I woke up to a cramp in my calf. Whether that is due to my excessive insistence on this point or not, I don’t know, but I grow tired of it.
We will disagree on this point. I am finished replying.
So, anyone got a NyQuil?
You were half right.
Was the question too complex? Did you fail to understand the phrase "What is the difference? Here’s a hint, it does not mean, “how can erl be proven wrong?”
You are a coward.
You twist extravagantly to avoid facing the truth:
[li] “absolute” has no meaning in erlsih.[/li]
It is a signifier without meaning. A descriminator that distinguishes nothing. A set of phonemes without semantic content. Erlish is baby talk for the polysyllabically inclined.
Finished? You never even started.
Lie to yourself if you wish. The English speakers of the world are not fooled.
This is the weirdest fucking Pit thread I’ve ever seen. Even the freakfreely thing wasn’t as loopy as this. I’ve slogged my way through this thread twice now and still have absolutely no idea what it’s about. This thread alone should be enough to have the word absolute expunged from the English Language.
[quote]
[li]Moral reference frames are bounded, and erl has a system of morals.[/li][li]Moral reference frames are bounded, and erl has an absolute system of morals.[/li][/quote]
The first point simply states that I am a person with morals.
The second point states that I am a person with a perfect moral system.
The difference lies in the degree of confidence ascribed to the moral system.
It remains my contention that once a person is bound in his own moral frame that any moral system becomes perfect by virtue of being the only moral system. If we remove the restriction of individual frames and allow for frames to combine, meet, or othrewise interact, then I would heartily agree that I am wrong, and that the meaning of absolute has not significantly changed, if it had changed at all. I have stated as much both here and in the original thread. I did not impose such a restriction; it was that very restriction which continues to impress upon me the return-to-solipsism quality that I am promoting.
I reject solipsism from the start, as did you. I am not about to bring it back in a new dress; that bitch is out to pasture.
The Ryan
I don’t expect him to accept it. I ecpect him to see that its change is a necessary one in relation to the restriction he placed on the ideas at hand.
Matt_mcl I do not believe that “unattainable” is a synonym for absolute.
kabbes, my anger lies purely within the construct of the discussion. But, most closely it would be with the word absolute’s connotations within a particular system of thought, and our apparent inability to see eye-to-eye on this principle.
Scylla, this is the case in normal conversation. I think it is somewhat clear that a semi-rigorous discussion about strict systems of understanding require language to lose its fluidity and become honed in on the discussion at hand. This discussion can be on a message board, over a telephone, or anywhere else discussion may be had. Language is fluid for the purpose of fitting more than one context. Once the context is chosen, language’s fluidity necessarily changes.
Or so I say; this seems to be a point of contention.
I do not intend to take the last word in this thread; that is of little importance to me. However, the response to the question was requested, and I see that that is not an unreasonable request.
Within my frame, of course.
In other words, ther is no difference (under those conditions) between “a moral system” and “an absolute[sup]erl[/sup] moral system”. The “change in meaning” you argue for is a change to no meaning. But you still can’t bring yourself to simply state the obvious.
I do not accept that it is necessary to use words that have no meaning.
Absolute[sup]erl[/sup] is a descriptor that provides no distinction. It is three syllables without semantic contect. It is a word used by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Saturday, July 14th at the Globotech Arena: Wittgenstein vs. Chomsky in a battle to the death! Color commentary by Jacques Derrida! The boxing event literally dozens of people around the world have been waiting for! Mostly the severely schizophrenic and acid-damaged philosophy majors! Just think how lucky you are to be alive at such a historic juncture in our society’s - ah, fuck it.
I can’t follow a damn thing either of these people are saying, but I think Spiritus has funnier insults. Therefore, I am backing his position, whatever that position may be.
Yes. FUCK.
In fact, in a forehead smacking fit last night I realized that there was no qualifier I could put there at all. Not absolute, not wrong, not right, not goat-fucking-gorgeous…nothing.
In such a case, though, “I am right” does degenerate into “I am.” Even if I was all fucked up semantically, of which I have no doubt now, my case remains (as rephrased) that isolated frames created reflexive-value-free judgements. All judgements must be external.
FUCK. [hey, it does mean more when in all caps!]
And for those watching in black and white, that means erl has realised that he was wrong.
I gotta admit that I’d been wondering if I’d missed your point before, 'cos I couldn’t see the difference between those statements with your definition myself. But until you saw it yourself, there was NO WAY I was getting in the middle.
Enjoy.
pan