Hi Jorge On 30 March:
> 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. All is read and understood, but my contention is merely that MOQ's 4th. level is (the value of) the said distinction. How science or philosophers sees things is not my business, but that much said I can't fathom any science going on without some conviction that there is a mind that can study things objectively. (snip,snip) > 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. Again all is read and as said before thanks to you I (finally) understood Pirsig's "many truth" point, but science's ever receding final truth is no argument against it's basic assumption of a reality different from the observer. To use science's Quantum Physics as an example of "substance's" untenability is OK, but speaking about a future 4th. level rid of the S/O distinction and imbued a with Quality's Dynamic/Static one - and a Q-science - I doubt the wisdom of. Like your paragraph above such a "science" will be a make- believe one and will guaranteed crumble. The S/O distinction is definitely no illness that infected an otherwise sound 4th. level, but the very level. It's assuming the role of a metaphysics, creating the isolated individual that lives in a valueless world is what the MOQ will repair, but as the overall metaphysics that has the 4th. level as its highest static good. > 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. Truth in capital letters did perhaps indicate something absolute, but see it this way. The static levels are static for the very reason of not being absolute, if examined deep enough they will show their roots in the former level, In this sense all level's patterns are "provisional" - not just intellect - so why did Pirsig pick on intellect's S/O (in the ancient "truth versus appearance" form) for being particularly unfounded, provisional and hiding its roots? Why not pick on the social patterns, they are just as keen on hiding their (biological) roots?. OK, you can't answer for Pirsig so it's just rhetorical. 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/
