On Apr 14, 2011, at 5:01 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Arlo said to Marsha: > Yes, "The MOQ" and "Pirsig" are both patterns of value. But this does not > mean the both say things. ...Figuratively, the MOQ spoke to you. > Conventionally, it was Pirsig speaking. > > dmb says: > I'm not sure what Marsha's point is, but it's fairly common to say > "pragmatism says this" or "empiricism say that". It's just a figure of > speech. You could also say "the pragmatist thinks this" or "the empiricists > believes that". I don't think any reasonable person would take that to mean > that a set of ideas can speak or that there is just one figure that speaks > for all actual persons within a school of thought. It's just a way to make > generalizations about a particular point of view. > Having said that, it seems to me that there is no important difference > between Pirsig's point of view and the MOQ. It makes no difference if we > attribute the point of view to Pirsig or Pirsig's MOQ. Either way, we're > talking about Bob's ideas. > > Marsha: > It is conventionally true.
> > dmb says: > The MOQ says conventional truth is the only kind there is. Truth is what's > good intellectually. Telling a pragmatist or a MOQer that truth is only > conventional is like telling the farmer that his fields are only dirt. It's > not a surprise to him and it does absolutely nothing to undermine what he > thinks he's doing. Telling a pragmatist that he can't have fixed, eternal > truths or thee absolute objective truth is like telling vegan that he can't > have steak. They're just going to scratch their heads and then, if they're > nice, they'll explain the meaning of the terms "pragmatist," "farmer," and > "vegan" to you. Again, you're misconstruing the rejection of the SOM's > objective truth and the rejection of Plato's fixed and eternal truth as a > rejection of any truth. The MOQ's pragmatic truth is conventional truth and > that's all truth can ever be. It's far less grandiose than those other > conceptions of truth but it is still a very excellent thing to have. > Rejecting objective truth does n > ot mean that truth is just some meaningless, whimsical, self-serving > illusion. Pragmatic truths are ones that can be put to work, the one that > actually make a difference in your experience. In what sense is that not > real? You use the phrase "conventional truth" as if it were some kind of put > down, like you're smacking down some essentialist claims about the nature of > eternal truth in itself. Man, that is so barking up the wrong tree. Here is my statement in context: > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 2:55 PM, MarshaV wrote: > >> [Marsha] >> Your interpretive legitimacy argument seemed like a red herring to me. I >> have no dog in that circus act. >> >> [Arlo] >> If only that were true. > > Marsha: > It is conventionally true. > Marsha: I was teasing. But if I wasn't, I would have meant 'true relative to convention' rather than Ultimate Truth. To me the MoQ's pragmatic truth, is useful truth. ___ 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
