More "friendly fire from Ron
25 March:
Bo had said:
> " Truth and objectivity is the same, I know of no truth that's not
> objective - unless one reverts to SOM's of looking upon the old myths
> as "their form of reason" .
Ron commented:
> The basic tenet of the MoQ and the current philosophical view Is that
> objective truth is relative.
I didn't know there existed any consensus in "current philosophy".
Anyway, thanks to the only thinker of this discussion - Jorge
Goldfarb - I finally understood Pirsig's "many truths" assertion,
namely that science will never arrive at a final result. Particle
physics the best example, from the indivisible atom to worm can
of subatomic particles, the more energy the more particles. From
Rutherford's desktop apparatus to the multi-mile Super Collider at
CERN.
Now, THIS kind of many truths I can vouch for, but for Chrissake
this is intellect's very VALUE, the one that arrived with the Greek
thinkers' break with the mythological reality (of truth residing
within the realms of God(s). and had LILA followed up and made
the Greek breakthrough the advent of the 4th. level, out of the
3rd, everything would have been OK, but instead Pirsig went and
made "intellect" a neutral idea faculty that was hijacked by the
said Greek SOM's (this becoming the false truth idea) with the
MOQ the many truths idea made the MOQ a true mess.
Again, the 4th. level isn't any false idea of truth, but what Jorge's
Maturana postulated as:
" ...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."
Right, intellect is the VALUE of the notion of an existence
independent of the observer and this value we better keep high
and dry. A MOQ in the role of an idea that that science is a hoax
means a slippery slope back to the social level and such a MOQ
I will not touch with a poker. No, the MOQ is not an intellectual
pattern (if so it must be static) but the very Quality Reality that
has intellect's S/O distinction as its highest and best static level.
> To illustrate that objective Truth is linguistic as well as the s/o
> distinction, I offer that 1+1=2 is a truth that is not objective, to
> name one of many truths That do not occupy a point in space.
Objective is not always concrete in the sense of occupying space,
you can't be this naïve (to say the least).
> Objectivity embodies the abstract/ Concrete distinction of western
> language.
Well, if all is language-determined then make up a metaphysics
of language (a MOL) but it will be a replica of the MOQ.
> When Derk Bodde translated Feng Youlan's history of Chinese philosophy
> (1952), he noted the difficulties of construing the White Horse paradox
> in English
I have read it all and it looks like SOM at the Plato/Aristotelian
stage; "Horseness" the stable objective part, with the living
animal the fleeting subjective part. Showing that the Orientals
had an intellectual encounter, but it never developed into a SOM.
This was not halted by their language's structure, if they would
not have begun it in the first place.
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/
