I can define truth. Truth is the highest quality of intellect. And I can define intellect too, or get Bo to do it for me. But if you ask to me to define quality, I will have to stop.
b-a-n-a-n-a-n-n-an-n-a On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:29 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this where DQ comes into the discussion > > it's indefinable but you know what it is > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:24:00 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ > > Hmmmm. > > I'm really not in the mood to argue, but what exactly is your definition of > truth? If pure experience, I think there is not the time/space to make a > comparison. > > > Marsha > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of X Acto > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ > > Now, Calling Rorty a relativist is kinda lumping him in > with a company I'm not sure is deserved, a truth relativist > is more a contextualist, they admit truths do exist but > are contextual. > > that fits > > sitting on a hot stove and jumping off is foundational as a true pure > expereince > with pragmatic consequence > but how that expereince is interpreted is of contextual nature,ex. while > we > would say it burned, > another culture might describe as biting, the metal beast bit me. ect.. > > it these sorts of cultural distinctions ( I think) Rorty meant but as I say > I have to do some reading on Rorty. > > thanks Steve > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: X Acto <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:33:01 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ > > Hello Steve, > > I don't think thats too pessimistic rather a healthy bit of skepticism > regarding the matter, which, in my opinion gives it more power. > > It also flushes out the term "relativism" as mostly a pejoritive term > toward this sort of thinking in the context we are discussing. > > I don't feel that the idea is to escape or free ourselves but to extend > and expand. > > -Ron > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Steve Peterson <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:15:39 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ > > Hi Ron, > > I don't want to sound too pessimistic about our inability to free ourselves > from our culture. We are also in a position to recreate our culture. > > Consider this from a Princeton colleague of Rorty named Jeffrey Stout in > Ethics After Babel: > > "...tradition-bound thought is [not] necessarily uncritical. We may have no > power to transcend our traditional inheritance completely--for we are > finite, historically situated beings--but we do not have to rise above > history to call assumptions in question. The attempt to stand outside one's > age, Hagel said in a famous phrase, is like trying to jump over the Rhodes. > You cannot do it. The danger comes when you think you have, for then you > will be more likely than ever to set limits on criticism. You will view > some > of your assumptions as eternal deliverances of reason. It would be better > to > think of them as predjudices--as prejudgments [Pirsig would call such > habits > of thought, intellectual patterns of value] any one of which can in > principle be placed in question provided most are kept in place at any > given > moment." > > Now it seems Pirsig said that he needed to "leave the mythos" to bring back > the Quality postulate which explains his insanity. He put too many of > tradition-bound assumptions into question at once. It was necessary for him > to do so because he was pursuing the "Ghost of Reason" itself. But when he > returned to create a thing called "The Metaphyics of Quality" he was back > in > the mythos, fighting to call a particular set of tradition-bound > assumptions > into question while maintaining others. If he didn't maintain others, he > would be completely incomprehensible. > > Pirsig never expected the MOQ to be the final word on reality. His work is > a > contribution to an ongoing cultural process of self-creation that cycles > from such innovation as his MOQ to criticism to revision to the next > innovation. That the MOQ is not immune to this historical process does not > diminish Pirsig's genius, it is just to say that Pirsig is a "finite, > historically situated being." > > Best, > Steve > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:53 PM, X Acto wrote: > > > Hello Steve, > > > > I think we mix in meaning, while I agree that what is percieved is shaped > > by culture, and that Moq is not a free ticket to a gods eye view, it > however > > does provide a standard in which all human cultures may be understood > > and measured in relation to their values. > > Keeping in mind, that the intellectual level of a culture is defined by > that culture. > > its highest patterns being those that sustain social and biological > quality. > > > > I do not think this effects our culturally derived perception as our > culturally > > derived understanding. > > It informs us that our cultural values of intellect are not THE value of > intellect. > > > > > > Moq in this manner may be applied to any cultural context > > > > I really feel that it's most profound impact is on human values as a > whole > > > > which break down universally in terms of four static levels of quality. > > > > > > > > -Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Steve Peterson <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:52:16 PM > > Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > >> Steve, > >> I thought the premise behind the 4 levels was not only better > understanding > >> but > >> the breaking of the paralysis of cultural relativism, and relativism in > general, > >> I got the feeling throughout Lila that that was the problem western > society faced. > >> > >> and the arguement Pragmatism lacked > >> > >> you know > >> > >> virtue, excellence..betterness...Quality > >> > >> virtually both books are about the feelings of emptiness and detachment > >> objectivism unleashes in the form of moral relativism. > >> > >> I agree it is not about what is true, but it IS about what is better. > >> > >> beliefs are justified through use in expereince otherwise they have no > value. > >> > >> what else would be discussed than what values are better than others? > >> > >> and what framework would yield those answers but MoQ? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm not sure how "I think therefore I am" figures into the conversation > >> in this regard. > > > > > > Steve: > > I was referring to this bit from Lila: > > "Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived. > Nature tells us only what our culture predisposes us to hear. The > selection > of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore is made on the > basis of social patterns of value, or when it is not, on the basis of > biological patterns of value. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a > historically shattering declaration of independence of the intellectual > level of evolution from the social level of evolution, but would he have > said it if he had been a seventeenth century Chinese philosopher? If he > had > been, would anyone in seventeenth century China have listened to him and > called him a brilliant thinker and recorded his name in history? If > Descartes had said, "The seventeenth century French culture exists, > therefore I think, therefore I am," he would have been correct." > > > > The MOQ is not immune to this sort of historical contingency either and > so > then is also culturally derived. This is not a dig on the MOQ. Everything > is > culturally derived. At least the MOQ includes an understanding of that > fact. > > > > Twentieth century liberalism exists, therefore Pirsig thinks, therfore > the > MOQ exists. > > > > Best, > > Steve > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > 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/
