dmb, The basic MoQ solution is to understand that there is Value(Dynamic/static), and that static value is 'patterned'. Do you think that your writing the phrase "MoQ's truth" negates all other aspects of 'truth'? The pattern 'truth' is just one pattern among many, and it goes beyond your definition. The fundamental principal of the MoQ is the idea that the world is nothing but value, after that it is all analogy. Analogy!
I have stated many times that I do not label 'truth' wrong, or bad, or "reject it." I have nothing to say about 'truth'. The idea of truth does not interest me. So while I concede that there is nothing inherently bad with the intellectual static pattern of value labeled 'truth', neither is there anything inherently wrong with my finding it more useful to consider objects of knowledge (stuff in the encyclopedia) _patterns_ rather than truths. In fact, I am staying closer to the MoQ's fundamental principle. I have never insisted, or suggested, that you or anyone adopt my position. I like the idea of knowledge being labeled 'patterns'; it is the best representation of static quality. Marsha p.s. As far as my experience goes, the fundamental principle of the MoQ cannot be violated. I think your accusing me of undermining the MoQ has more to do with my indifference to your intellectual investment in William James. On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:04 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark said to dmb: > > ...Character assassination through personal terms such as "confused" has no > place in a setting which worships Arete. ...I am not sure that Marsha is > confused. ... The confusion may be yours in terms of what her intention is > when she posts in this forum. > ...In summary, by placing Quality above Truth, we are redefining truth within > the paradigm of Quality. It is difficult to compare two paradigms except > through how useful they are. > > > dmb says: > Saying Marsha is confused is not an attack on her character. It is a > criticism of her assertions and comments in a philosophy discussion group. In > fact, any fair reader should be able to see (below) that I explained exactly > which concepts she is mixing up, which ideas she is confusing. To put it in > your terms, she's so confused that she's using Pirsig's criticism of the old > paradigm to dismiss Pirsig's new definition of truth. As I like to put it, > she has confused the problem (eternally fixed Truth) with the solution > (provisional pragmatic truths) and so the consequence is to dismiss the MOQ's > solution. > > At this point, neither you nor Marsha has had anything relevant to say about > the substance of this criticism. The is no reason for me to think that it > does not still stand. It is reproduced below in it's entirety. > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >> 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 > > 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
