On Feb 6, 2010, at 12:04:14 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium Date: February 6, 2010 12:04:14 PM PST To: [email protected] On 2/6/2010, 2:31 PM, DMB wrote (to Marsha):
> As I understand it, the MOQ agrees with contextualism > (we're suspended in language) and it agrees that these contexts > are constructed (analogy upon analogy) but it says these contexts > are not constructed arbitrarily (Quality is not arbitrary or > capricious) and the pragmatic theory of truth does not abandon > empirical restraints (it has to agree with experience and function > in experience). These non-linguistic constraints distinguish the > MOQ from this relativism. Marsha replied: > Where does the MoQ agree with contextualism? I thought > the MoQ agreed with Protagoras' Measure Doctrine. > Arbitrary and capricious? Is 'arbitrary and capricious' your > definition of relativism? DMB explains: > All of the stuff I put in parentheses references Pirsig quotes. > I can't tell you what page it is where Pirsig agrees with the notion > that "we're suspended in language", where Pirsig says our world > is built of analogies, where Pirsig says that Quality is "not arbitrary > or capricious". But you've seen them. You know they're in there. > And how can you ask about the measure doctrine as if I hadn't > just quoted Pirsig on that? He said virtue "was absolutely central > to their teaching, but how are you going to teach virtue if you teach > the relativity of all ethical ideas?" and "QUALITY! VIRTUE! > DHARMA! THAT is what the Sophists were teaching! > NOT ethical relativism."? > > But anyway, around here truth is the pragmatic truth. > It's provisional, self-correcting and grounded out in actual > experience. Truth and falsity are what happens to an idea > in the course of experience. It's contextual and perspectival > but reality, which is to say experience, has a way of keeping us > honest and that's what prevents the MOQ from being a relativism. Gav asks: > Isn't this splitting hairs? I mean if truth is contextual and perspectival > isn't that a form of relativism? 'Truth is relative'... another way of > saying that [it] might be 'context-dependent'. > > Plato: good is relative; truth is absolute > Pirsig: truth is relative; good is absolute > Is this summary accurate? David is, indeed, splitting hairs. But so is Pirsig, by making Plato's Virtue a different sort of "good" than pragmatic or empirical truth. This whole discussion, in my opinion, hinges on what one believes is the nature of Experience. David says "reality, which is to say experience, has a way of keeping us honest and that's what prevents the MOQ from being a relativism." But that's because he believes Experience=Reality (in the universal or objective sense). I suspect that Marsha and Gav believe that Experience is subjective, which makes "man the measure" of Goodness, hence supporting the relativity (or provisional nature) of empirical truth. The argument that "we're suspended in language" is begging the question. It's not the context of language that determines the validity of truth; it's experience. And experience is not universal but relative to the individual. What "keeps us honest" in our precept of experiential truth is the universality of empirical principles. The question we need to ask is: are Quality, Goodness and Virtue "absolute truths"? Plato says no, Pirsig says yes. But if Experience=Reality, then Quality (moral or esthetic goodness) cannot be absolute because experience is relative to the individual. There is no "contextual" way around the fact that the reality of experience is relational. THAT is an empirical truth. If you want or need to believe that there's Absolute Truth, you have to extend your belief system beyond experiential existence. In other words, you have to accept the metaphysical concept that the source of experiential reality is absolute and unconditional. Be forewarned, however. Because such a belief transcends subject/object perspectives of Truth -- including the truth of Quality itself -- it contradicts the fundamental premise of Pirsig's MoQ. Essentially speaking, Ham Mark replies, Gav is correct that ZAMM is about the battle between Quality and Truth. It is indeed a return to what is termed the Sophist doctrine concerning excellence. This is found in Chapter 28 I believe. Now the question as to whether Quality = experience=reality, or whatever word substitution or non-equals one wants to add to the equation, I think we know what is at stake: A world where "man is the measure of all things" as Protagoras would say, or a world where man's measurement is subservient to something else. Towards the beginning of Chapter 28, there is the statement that "Quality is the generator of the mythos.." The same paragraph goes on to say that "Men invent responses to Quality". (I believe there is a paradox in ZAMM here which puts it outside of the Sophists). I can correlate "responses to Quality" to say that what Ham terms: "reality of experience [being] relational", is in fact "responses to Quality". From ZAMM, I do not believe that a premise of absoluteness contradicts what Pirsig has written, so I am unclear what Ham is referring to. I believe that Ham's premise is that there is no reality outside our own, which does indeed have relativistic tones. To say this would imply that when we die, the world dies. In my opinion, experience is but a part of existence. There is a reality outside of experience, there has to be else wise we are just negating nothingness in a vacuum. This may be assumed to be so, but then what is regulating how we create our reality? Who is making that decision? What we experience is our brain in a constant dance with that outside. So are we the brain, or are we the dance? If we are the dance, where does the music come from? Now, I would also add that Quality denies empirical Truths such as Ham proposes. Indeed if "truth is relative", then even that statement is relative in itself. This notion would deny any kind of scaffolding to anything and would result in some kind of existential meaninglessness. Worse yet, it would also relegate all opinions to meaningless statements. I believe we are beyond that point. There is a context to our realities. Cheers, Mark _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > dmb says: > > The whole book is structured around the quest for Quality and > yet that's exactly what's missing from the story. In the post, > the story is construed as a contest between Plato's absolutism > and the Sophist's relativism. Matt quotes a passage that SEEMS > to support this view. "Their object was not any single absolute truth, > but the improvement of men. All principles, all truths, are relative, > they said. 'Man is the measure of all things.' These were the famous > teachers of 'wisdom', the Sophists of ancient Greece." If Pirsig had > stopped there, I might be able to go along with Matt's reading > but he didn't. In fact, Pirsig goes on to say the very opposite, > that they were NOT relativists and that coming to such a conclusion > about the Sophists doesn't make much sense. > > On the next page (374) he says, "the one thing that doesn't fit what > he says and what Plato says about the Sophists is their profession of > teaching VIRTUE. All accounts indicate that this was absolutely central > to their teaching, but how are you going to teach virtue if you teach > the relativity of all ethical ideas?" He explores the issue for a couple > of pages and then says, (377) "Lightning hits! QUALITY! VIRTUE! > DHARMA! THAT is what the Sophists were teaching! NOT ethical > relativism. NOT pristine 'virtue'. But ARETE. Excellence. DHARMA! > Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before from. > Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been > absolute. > Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching QUALITY, > and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric. He has been > doing it right all along." (Emphasis is Pirsig's) 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/
