ONT Re: Inquiry Oriented Systems
Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:06:16 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.ontology.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o IOS. Note 5 o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o 3.2.10. The Pragmatic Cosmos (cont.) Why do things have to be this way? Why should it be necessary to suppose an ordering, much less a pragmatic ordering, on the commonly understood array of goods and quests? If everyone who reflects on the question for a sufficient spell of time tends to agree that the Beautiful, the Just, and the True are one and the same in the End, then why is it necessary to postulate a meantime cosmos, and why should the pragmatic cosmos have a special appeal? The practical necessity of some order or other and the potential of a pragmatic order are apparently relative to a certain contingency that affects the typical agent that we have in mind, namely, the contingency of being a fallible and a finite creature. Perhaps from a "God's Eye View" (GEV), Beauty, Justice, and Truth all amount to a single Good, the only Good that there is. Still, the imperfect creature is not given this outlook on the good as its realized actuality and it cannot contain its vision within the point of view that is proper to it. And even if it sees the possibility of this unity, it has no way to actualize what it sees at once, at best being driven to work toward its realization measure by measure, and that is only if our limited agent is capable of reason and reflection at all. The imperfect agent lives in a world of seeming beauty, seeming justice, and seeming truth. Fortunately, the symmetry of this seeming insipidity can break up in relation to itself, and with the loss of the objective world's equipoise and indifference goes all of the equanimity and most of the insouciance of the agent in question. It happens like this: Among the number of apparent goods and amid the manifold of good appearances, one soon discovers that not all seeming goods are alike. Seeming beauty is the most seemly and the least deceptive, since it does not vitiate its own intention in merely seeming to achieve it, and does not destroy what it reaches for in merely seeming to grasp it. Jon Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o