Hi dmb, On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:36 AM, david buchanan wrote:
> > dmb said: > ...Marsha is confused... she's so confused that she's using Pirsig's > criticism of the old paradigm to dismiss Pirsig's new definition of truth. > ...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. > > Marsha replied: > ... 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. ... I > think your accusing me of undermining the MoQ has more to do with my > indifference to your intellectual investment in William James. > > dmb says: > If you think there is nothing wrong with your assertions, then you still do > not understand this criticism. I'm telling you exactly why it's wrong, why > your comments make no sense. If you think there is something wrong with my statements, than there is something wrong with your perspective. 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! > You have not only failed to address this criticism, you haven't shown any > indication of comprehension. This is an opinion, not a statement that demonstrates that my perspective is wrong. I do not consider you "opinions" very informative or interesting. > In fact, all you've done is repeat the same mistake. I've repeated my point-of-view. And as I have stated it is closer to the fundamental principle of the MoQ. > You keep insisting that you prefer patterns over truth even though they are > two names for the same thing. I have stated that I have nothing to say about 'truth'. I have stated the idea of 'truth' doesn't interested me. 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. > It's like saying you prefer to think of beer as beer rather than beer. It's > just absurd nonsense. I think your interpretation is absurd nonsense. RMP has written LILA which explains static (patterned) value, not static (true) patterns. If he had wanted the emphasis to be on 'truth', he would have made that his emphasis. But he didn't, though it seems you'd like to. Too bad. > Since Pirsig quotes William James on the issue of truth and claims that this > is "exactly" what MOQ means by truth, your aversion to James probably has a > lot to do with your confusion. He didn't at that point change 'static patterns' to 'static truths'. No, I am not confused; I prefer to use the term 'patterns'. I understand that patterns exist and continue to exist due to their usefulness. > And, do you know what we call people who don't care about the truth? It's not > flattering. It's nothing to proud of. And are you under the mistaken understanding that your opinion means a hill of beans to me? When someone doesn't agree with you, you call them anti-intellectual, or nihilistic or a some other denigrating term. And your use of "We" is comical, and meaningless. I'll ignore the rest of the post; your questions have no direct value to the topic. > Don't you care if your own comments are full of contradictory nonsense? Are > you unconcerned that this will make you look foolish or dishonest or > incompetent? Nobody WANTS to be a confused, mixed up hack. Are you so > anti-intellectual that you actually want to avoid thinking clearly. Do you > really think misconceptions are of no concern, that they don't matter? > > Yes, there is definitely something wrong with what you say - over and over > and over again. But you just can't see it, apparently. I suppose not agreeing with you is what you find wrong with my statements. 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 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 > > 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
