Hi dmb,
> "...if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes > possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the > absolute Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual > explanation of things... There are many sets of intellectual reality in > existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that > we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of > values." (LILA) > > > Marsha said: > And why I consider your opinions, as well as mine, hypothetical (supposed but > not neccesarily real or true.) > > David replied: > ...Truth is provisional and taken as useful until something better comes > along! That is quite different than hypothetical. If you cannot see that > then please look at a dictionary. > > dmb says: > Yes, as I keep trying to explain, Marsha's view of intellectual static > quality amounts to anti-intellectualism. It turns intellectual quality into a > fleeting and whimsical "opinion". And this turns the MOQ's pragmatic theory > of truth into the worst kind of relativism wherein everyone's opinion is > equally hypothetical. > > But this view of truth puts Quality at the center, at the front end of our > practices and modes of inquiry and the static intellectual quality has to > make sense within our culture's "current patterns of values" too. As James > says, pragmatic truths are wedged and controlled like no other, they have to > agree with the sensual flux (Quality) and the conceptual order (current > static patterns). I mean, Pirsig (and James) rejects absolute Truth and > Objective truth, etc. but this does not mean we're supposed to abandon our > respect for excellence in thought and speech or pretend that nothing is ever > true in any sense. The MOQ's root expansion of rationality leads up to the > MOQ's conception of truth, so Marsha's blunder is pretty epic and undermines > the MOQ's most basic purposes and misses the most fundamental points. Right dmb. But what now? I mean, you're right. Marsha sees no value in truth or the dialectal method and so naturally she doesn't value responding to a logical argument in logical way. She's just not interested and has said as much.. "You're welcome to value truth, but it's not something I'm interested in". What Marsha does value is quote sharing and either her interpretation or those who have a similar view. If you would like to point out how her interpretation might be wrong or of low quality or how there might be a better way to see things, then that isn't something she's interested in. If Marsha isn't interested in becoming a better person then that seems like something which is very strange to me. But on reflection, it makes sense from her point of view.. I mean, if you say that things aren't 'real' or 'true' then you can't ever take stock and say that anything has ever happened in order to learn from those mistakes and become a better person.. -David. 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
