GRGR(3) talking ethos

[Paul Mackin]

keith woodward wrote:Ye-owch!  That's a big can of worms: is this the way that
moralconsciousness is fostered in the text?  I'm honestly not sure, but I can

> say that it's not the only theory out there regarding how/why we are moral.
> Aristotle and Kant don't see it that way at all.  I'm not saying that P
> espouses either, but what I am saying is that, with regard to Blicero, it
> doesn't necessarily have to follow a conditioning model (which looks like
> another brand of hedonism to me).  Unless it pops up in the text somewhere
> as such...?
>

>>>I was off the page (which is not recommended)--because the stimulus/response
model does indeed have a sufficiently huge array of defects else P would never
take an interest in it. Is it possibly  always fair to say that P isn't interested
in seeking out some right answer with regard to human destiny but rather in
exploring the infinity of wrong answers that have been proposed and found
wanting--e.g. conditioning. Roger's probability model will fare no better will it?
This is not to say that stochastic analysis has been discredited but has anyone
noticed (or is it true) that science guy Pynchon never brings the current serious
science projects that real scientists are presently doing into the fray.  (does
he?)

                                                            P.