dmb, Anthony writes in the MoQ Textbook : “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time."
So yes, 'truth' is a (one) intellectual static pattern of value. So is 'justice', 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'trial by jury." Marsha On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:08 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha said: > The term 'truth' has a long history and a deep association with the search > for certainty.. Clinging to the term 'truth' with its deeply embedded > existing denotations and connotations doesn't move toward a new quality > orientation. Using 'patterns' clearly cuts the ties to the old > understanding. It's fresh, it's new, it's a better representation. > > > David Harding replied: > So this is your explanation as to why 'truth' has issues. It has 'deeply > embedded existing denotations and connotations' and has a history with the > search for certainty. ....Everyone knows what truth is. It is just that > our intellectual understanding of the best place for it within metaphysics > for the last 2500 years has been wrong. If, using the MOQ, we get a better > understanding of truth, then that is valuable, not just for truth into the > future, but for everything ever written about truth. We can take those > truths from the past which are valuable and discard those which are not. ... > > > > dmb says: > > Marsha rejects the term "truth" because she prefers "patterns". This is > absurd for one simple reason; THE MOQ DEFINES TRUTH AS PATTERNS. In effect, > her stance rejects the MOQ's truth because she prefers the MOQ's truth. > Clearly, the woman is confused. > > > To put it in a nutshell, Marsha's incoherent stance on truth is a result of > confusing the problem with Pirsig's solution to that problem. He ditches > Platonic Truth and Objective Truth and replaces it with a pragmatic truth but > Marsha ham-handedly ditches the replacement too. She treats the solution as > if it were identical to the problem and so refuses to use the word "truth" > and declares no interest in the concept even when talking about it here, in > the context of the MOQ. Apparently, Marsha cannot discern the difference > between the MOQ's theory of truth and Plato's fixed and eternal Truth or the > Objective Truth of SOM. And so she simply rejects the word truth altogether, > rejects the notion of truth altogether. > > Please notice how Marsha's stance is quite nonsensical even on the most basic > level. Her mistakes are so fundamental that they in the same neighborhood as > grammatical errors and the misuse of terms. She keeps saying that she prefers > the term "patterns" over the term "truth". But - as I keep saying - the MOQ > defines "truth" as "patterns". > > "That was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a > static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." > > The MOQ's pragmatic truth is defined as static intellectual patterns, but > Marsha prefers static patterns instead of truth? > > The are good reasons to reject the old conceptions of truth and adopt the > pragmatic theory of truth instead. But Marsha is confused in such a way that > she mistakenly uses those good reasons to reject the MOQ's improved > conception of truth. She uses Pirsig's attack against Pirsig. She uses the > MOQ to undermine the MOQ. It's hackery of the worst kind wherein the repairs > cannot be discerned from the damage. It's worse than useless. It creates a > mess, confuses and conflates the core concepts and, to the extent that other > people are confused or misled, Marsha's contributions are destructive. > > The problem, Pirsig says, is that "Reason and Quality had become separated > and in conflict with each other" back in the days of Plato. Plato had made > Quality subordinate to reason, to truth. The MOQ's solution is to reverse > that priority. > > "Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality." > > That's how Pirsig puts it in ZAMM but then you see this same solution in > Lila. The MOQ's pragmatic truth maintains that reversed priority so that > truth is within Quality and subordinate to Quality. > > "That was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a > static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." > > To say that truth is within a larger entity called Quality is to say that > truth is subordinate to Quality. In the MOQ, all of our concepts, truths, and > definitions have a relationship to this larger "entity" called Quality, to > the primary empirical reality, but it is a subordinate relationship. > > > > 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 ___ 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
