[Craig] Conventions are provisional; they can & do change. No one doubts this (I hope). Is this what is meant by "Truth is provisional"?
[Arlo] Yes. What we consider "true" is not absolute (in an objectivist view) nor is it 'whatever you want it to be' (in a subjectivist view), but a pattern of value that 'works' in such and such context, but certainly it can and does change. So "2+2=4" is neither objectively "True" nor is it subjectively arbitrary, it is "useful" within a context as evidenced by those operating within that context. You can call that "true" within that context, but once you leave that context you leave that behind. "[James] said, "The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief." "Truth is a species of good." That was right on. That was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." (LILA) As for what Pirsig meant by provisional, he answered that directly in LILA. "...this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along." Provisional means 'useful until something better comes along'. In fact these statements could be combined with no loss or alteration of meaning. "Truth is a static intellectual pattern, a high quality explanation, within a larger entity called Quality, that must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along." [Craig] Compare: Elizabeth never married. Elizabeth married Philip. [Arlo] Here again you are talking only about a shared agreement of usefulness within a social context. Who defines "married" in a "true or untrue" context? What if the state does not recognize the 'marriage'? What if the 'married' couple travel to some exotic context and find out that, within that context, only people wed by their leaders are considered 'married'. Or what about a church that refuses to recognize 'divorced' unless it is granted by them? Elizabeth may be 'married' or 'never married' or 'unmarried' depending on who is asked. And in every context, the answer given is 'right' in the sense that within that context, that is the shared agreement of use. The very question of 'being married' varies depending on the context and the shared agreement of what that means. Their is no "true" state of being married that trumps convention. John and Jane have been living together for most of their lives. They consider themselves to be 'married' even though they never filed paperwork with the state. John and Jane were 'married' by the state in a civil ceremony, but many of John's friends do not consider them 'married' because it the union was not ordained by 'God'. John and Jane were 'married' by their priest, but never filed documents with the state, so according to all state records and for all legal purposes, the state considers them 'unmarried'. John and Jane are 'married' by their priest and file documents with the state, but decide it isn't working out, so they attain a civil divorce, but the church refuses to grant an annulment. John and Jane have been living together unwed for most of their lives, they suddenly find out that according to the state's laws they are 'married' by virtue of having lived together for so long, although they do define themselves as 'married'. John and Tom have been living together for years, and consider themselves married. John and Tom live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages, and are wed. They have to relocate, and are now living in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages. John and Tom are 'married' by a priest who believes 'God' approves of same-sex marriage, but the state they are living in does not. I mean, I could go on and on and on... but if you ask 'are they married?' in any of these cases, which would you say is the 'true' answer? [Craig] Good point & helps solve Arlo's problem. [Arlo] Horse's example refutes your position, Craig, maybe you better go back and read it again. Being "useful to a cartographer" does not provide some objective 'trueness' that makes "useful to a sailor" inferior or incorrect. Within the context of shared agreement among cartographers, sure, they would all agree that the map "is" such and such. Okay. Good deal. Within the context of the sailor, if the map was working for him and others and had ongoing experiential value, the sailors using it would say the map "is" a correct navigational map. Just because its incorrect to a cartographer doesn't make it incorrect to a sailor. When you say one is the 'true' map of West Indies, you seem to suggest that this 'trueness' extends beyond the shared usefulness of those who find such a designation useful, and I think this type of objectivism is what the MOQ stands against. When something is 'true' within a shared context, this is really just a statement of usefulness within that context. But you seem to be saying that there are some things that are 'true' that extend beyond these contexts and are 'true' for all contexts - which is objectivism. 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
