Hi Jorge
On 23 March.
> You claim that truth and objectivity are the same and that you don't
> know of any truth that is not objective. That's quite a pronouncement.
> My first reaction was to say that's simply old-fashioned Classical
> Positivism and just dismiss it. However, I'm past the age when I'd
> dismiss ideas just on the grounds of the labels attached to them. I
> mean, to put a label like 'positivist', 'reductionist' , 'creationist'
> and, if label disliked, dismiss summarily the idea. That's the easy
> way out but it's bad for learning new things. So, instead, let me pursue
> your ideas and see where they can lead (and please correct me if I go
> off track).
Thanks for your objective attitude Jorge. Regarding your latest
post of the 24th. it's definitely Maturana's "objectivity proper" I
speak about and - yes - it'is meant to be as classical and
positivist as possible.
> Claiming that no truth is such if it's not arrived to through
> objectivity, would put 'scientific truths' at the top of the scale.
> This, because by applying the scientific method, we take the most
> extreme precautions to approach objectivity (note I said to approach
> and not to attain).
Objectivity or Truth (SOM) is the top static level in my SOL
interpretation, while "orthodoxy" says that the 4th. level is some
neutral mind-like compartment that got overwhelmed by a
villainous SOM. The latter is supposed to be ousted by the MOQ.
> Problem with 'scientific truths' is that they are provisional; they
> hold only for the Present, not for the past nor for the future. A more
> strong word for 'provisional' would be ephemerous; ephemeral truths. A
> bit more than a 100 years ago, atoms were considered indivisible, the
> smallest units of matter, a bit later the smallest units were protons,
> neutrons and electrons and nowadays positrons, neutrinos, plus others
> 'inos' and 'ons'; all these 'scientific truths' arrived at maximizing
> objectivity. In 50 years from now, we'll probably have other elementary
> particles conforming the atoms.
Yes, yes I agree with every word. The scientific-objective attitude
is not that of holding on to a particular stage, but the continuous
search. Yet, all this is fuelled by the conviction that there is a final
truth because there is an independent reality (as expressed by
Maturana's)
" ...the assumption that existence is independent of the
observer, that there is an independent domain of
existence, the universum, that is the ultimate reference
for the validation of any explanation. With objectivity
without parenthesis things, entities, exist with
independency of the observer that distinguishes them,
and it is the independent existence of things (entities,
ideas) that specifies the truth."
This is the very attitude that (ZAMM) saw as beginning with the
ancient Greek thinkers search for eternal principles i.e: a reality
deeper that the old mythological god-run one. The first stage,
namely Socrates' "Truth vs Appearance", via Plato and Aristotle
to what became the first science. This was pretty silly in our eyes
yet something that up through the centuries assumed a
metaphysical role and is now our mind/matter chasm.
> So much (and not much) for truths arrived at through objectivity.
> Alongside them we have other propositions which are not based on
> objectivity. Propositions like "God created the Universe" or "Humans
> have immortal souls". You'd dismiss those on the said grounds although
> most of Humanity consider them as Truths of the highest order.
The MOQ is such an enormous proposition that is requires an
endless number of "footnotes" and I'll try a couple re. this your
paragraph. If we apply the Q level lay-out, all god(s)-centered
explanation of reality are social patterns. But a society or culture
may be intellect-centered to various degrees. When the Greek
thinkers began their quest - say around 3-400 BC - what we call
Europe was deep in various myths (our own Nordic f.ex.) In the
area known as Israel and Egypt however mono-theism was
established, in this context a more advanced form of the social
level.
My contention is that the said area became influenced by the
Greeks as they established themselves around the Mediterranean
shore and with the Roman Empire (a continuation of the Greek
culture) the "objective attitude" and its many repercussions
(among those that of "man" the arbiter not the God(s) trickled into
its dominions and I see the figure Jesus as an antenna that
picked up the "intellectual signals" and - further - that his
rebellion against Mosaic Law and the ensuing Christendom was
a break with the old social level reality. We know that
Christendom continued in the same vein for a thousand years,
but the Greek influence (Aristotle becoming a Church Father in
the Medieval times) resulted in the soul/body dualism, unknown
to Judaism or Islam.
> Under the same criterion one would have to dismiss what I'd call
> 'personal truths' like in This is the best beer I've ever had!
> which for the person in question might be of the kind of 'the truth
> and nothing but the truth' but far from objectivity.
Yes, in a MOQ context these will be "subjective", but to account
for the emergence of objectivity's twin (mirror image) would
require another lecture.
> I could go on mentioning other kinds of truths but I suppose that,
> from the above, it seems to follow that 'truths' are not really such a
> big deal, as some philosophers contend, since the grounds on which
> truths are based are pretty flimsy. (which, in more learned words, is I
> think one of the tenants of Pragmatism).
A MOQ tenet is that the levels evolved more and more complex
pattern to the point of one so "dynamic" that it became the
building block (BB) of the next level (Pirsig only elaborates on the
inorganic/biological transition with the carbon atom the BB) but
regarding the internal evolution the intellectual level followed the
same trait and grew more and more sophisticated S/O-patterns
and modern physics can be seen as the a most dynamic
intellectual pattern. In this the objective/subjective distinction is
almost gone and we see that Pirsig refers to Quantum Physics
when underpinning the MOQ, for instance showing that inorganic
value patterns fit the quantum idea, while "substance" violates it.
Now, the MOQ is no "level" but somehow it displays level-like
aspects in its relationship with Intellect ..... OK, now I'm away on
my hobbyhorse.
> Which I take to mean: we drop 'absolute truths" because they are
> unattainable; we are left only with 'relative truths' which are either
> provisional (the objective ones) or eternal but unverifiable (the
> mystical ones). We are left merely with "sets of intellectual reality"
> of which, as perceived, some have more quality than others. Since
> quality thus perceived is the result of our history and current values,
> it is also ephemeral. We can expect no more then than trying "to make
> sense of the world as observed".Only that the last sentence may be
> taken to be what,in colloquial language, Science is all about.
Yes had Pirsig said that truth is "intellectual reality" all would
have been OK, but he proposes a neutral 4th. level that can
contain all kinds of ideas, some of absolute truth, some of
relative truth and some of God knows what, and this is untenable.
Only the SOL with the 4th. level THE TRUTH (and its many
repercussions) works.
> If I haven't gone "off the track" somewhere in the
> above, it would appear that Science and the MOQ have
> more in common than what previously assumed.
It's a pleasure to talk to you Jorge. About Science and the MOQ I
have expressed opinions bordering on doubt (the rug point) but
that's regarding "orthodoxy" I think the SOL will make Science go
on.
IMO
Bo
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/
