Hi all, I was going to comment that this (nevertheless interesting) thread was descending into a purely definitional one in terms of the word truth, then I noticed Matt had already said it better (quoting Davidson)
"truth is a semantic notion, not an epistemic one" And therefore not an important one to Pirsig (or any pragmatist), where truth value (quality) is what matters. So abandoning a definition of truth to the obscurity of language - a la Rorty - is ... errr ... pragmatic (if not audacious). It is good / useful / better to treat gravity as existing before Newton, in developing causal explanations and justifications for things now, related to things past - but of no value to debate whether that means it is / was true (or not). Someone here coined "relationalism" to avoid semantic debates about "relativism" vs "foundationalism" too - that might help us ? Relationships matter, but to be relative in some arbitrary subjective sense is pretty well useless. And finally Bo's point ... > ".... the notion that before the beginning of the earth, before the > sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of > anything, Quality existed." > > I do NOT oppose that inside the MOQ quality has existed for ever but > THIS QUALITY IS THE DQ OF THE DQ/SQ CONFIGURATION not a > Quality that exists independent of the MOQ. > Is also a semantic argument, about the word "quality" as used in a particular sentence. Yes, Bo, the quality that pre-existed was a "potential" for quality, a DQ from which more static patterns might emerge. It is simply good to treat the MoQ "as if" it had existed before being intellectually expressed (See Gravity above). Regards Ian PS come back Paul Turner 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/md/archives.html
