Bo writes (March 27th):
"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)
Jorge(current): Just a clarification so as not to
embarrass H. Maturana. He doesn't subscribe to this
view at all; nor, I'd venture, a large proportion of
scientists nowadays that wouldn't think, as you say,
that they "are fuelled by the conviction of a final
truth" The view of objectivity as quoted below,
although the majority view about the Universe a
hundred years ago, is reserved nowadays to a very
restricted part of it.
" ...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."
The said 'restricted part of the Universe' referrers
to that domain of physical phenomena where we have
good reasons to believe that things or entities exist,
as described by the observer, independently of the
observer. The best example of that domain, IMO, is
that of the positions and motions of the planets in
our system. We have a number of good reasons (which I
won't go into for now) to believe that said planetary
system would go on behaving, as described by Classical
Mechanics, exactly the same if we humans were to
disappear one day from the face of the Earth. Thus
this description would "specify the truth" about that
system. Needless to say, other examples carrying this
certitude are not easy to come by.
Jorge(previous): 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.
Jorge (current): I see you didn't comment on mine
(taken from the Pirsig's quote):
"
Since quality thus perceived is the result of our
history and current values,it is also ephemeral
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"
If 'quality' is also ephemeral, "a result of history
and current values" how can the MOQ presume to
encompass Science and other thought systems that claim
only provisional truths?
I'm re-re-quoting the same paragraph because you are
right, I think, in calling it "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 ourhistory and current patterns of
values."
this is a puzzling bone. It leaves me in the position
of a dog which, on contemplating a bone, hesitates on
whether to eat it or not; hesitates because it
suspects someone may have left him a plastic bone, a
make-believe one. What I find particularly puzzling is
that the wording looks so modest and unpretentious
compared to his views on Science and Philosophy.
You write on this:
Bo(previous): 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.
Jorge (current): there is quite a difference, IMO,
between saying that "there are many sets of
intellectual reality in existence" (as Pirsig says)
and yours "Truth is intellectual reality" Yours, if I
read you correctly, implies that there is THE TRUTH,
as an absolute truth attainable by humans. Yet,
throughout this exchange you seemed to accept that, at
most, we have provisional and/or relative truths.
In The Thread of MOQ basics you write:
" 11. Truth.Truth is an intellectual value pattern.
There is no
single truth, only high quality and low quality
truths.
Truth is THE intellectual pattern IMO because Pirsig
simply means
that science is constantly evolving new and better
knowledge. It's only "truth",is the notion of an
existence independent of the subject, namely the S/O
distinction which is the 4th level value."
Which again, (if I read correctly) seems to
consider scientific truths as the only (or main?)
truths.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Inbox http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
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/
