Hi Bo, [Platt] > > You assert "I know of no truth that's not objective --." I presume > > your answer is limited by the context of Jorge's question because it > > appears you omit Pirsig's concept of truth -- like "paintings in an > > art gallery" -- showing that the S/O split is actually superseded by > > DQ/SQ.
[Bo] > I believe this is the "bone": > > But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality > then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths > to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." > One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual > explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is > any guide to the future this explanation must be taken > provisionally; as useful until something better comes > along. One can then examine intellectual realities the > same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not > with an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting, > but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. > There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence > and we can perceive some to have more quality than > others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our > history and current patterns of values. > > which is based on the early mind-definition of intellect (before the > Turner letter) where all explanations are "intellectual", included > MOQ itself which - if applied - would rid this intellect of the > illusion that there is anything called truth and objectivity. I find > this dangerous and uphold that the intellectual level is the VALUE > of the S/O distinction in the "objectivity over subjectivity" sense. > In such a context the S/O isn't in conflict with the DQ/SQ > dichotomy. I see nothing "dangerous" in pointing out that S/O intellect's truth and objectivity are values, and that value, i.e., Quality, supersedes truth. We can easily maintain the objective truths of science while at the same time pointing out that such truths are essentially values. (skip) [Platt] > > Truth, no matter how arrived at, is first and foremost a value, like > > goodness and beauty. [Bo] > Truth is a value all right, the highest STATIC value IMO, while > goodness isn't (a) value, but VALUE itself which is > dynamic/static-divided by the MOQ. Regarding Beauty I think it's > part of the many Quality derivatives. [Platt] In a hierarchy I would put Quality on top with Truth, Goodness and Beauty on a line directly below. I think Beauty deserves a higher rank than you give it due to the references of aesthetics relating to Quality in Pirsig's writings. [Bo] > Regarding Truth and how it (unnecessarily )came to be Quality's > antagonist (ZAMM) > > But why? Phædrus wondered. Why destroy areté? And no > sooner had he asked the question than the answer came > to him. Plato hadn't tried to destroy areté. He had > encapsulated it; made a permanent, fixed Idea out of it; > had converted it to a rigid, immobile Immortal Truth. He > made areté the Good, the highest form, the highest Idea > of all. It was subordinate only to Truth itself, in a synthesis > of all that had gone before. [PLatt] I thought Plato immortalized Beauty and put it on top of everything, not Truth. (Perhaps I'm confusing Plato with Plotinus.) (skip) [Platt] > > That the ideology of science largely ignores these ultimate meanings > > accounts for much of the current moral decay. [Bo] > Right, but with science a pattern of an intellectual level no longer > SOM but a subset of the MOQ all is made good. [Platt] Ah, yes. If only more could be persuaded. I'm afraid if that ever happens it will be long after we are gone. Regards, Platt 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
