Ian said to dmb:
dmb, if we can focus on the "definition" ... (BTW I still don't see any
disagreement with Marsha, except in your intent - later.) So, the truth is,
"truth is a static intellectual patterns WITHIN Quality". Agreed - not in the
least contentious. You then re-interpret in your own words using "pragmatic"
truth, but this is not really what Pirsig is saying. The truth is ANY
(objective) intellectual object is a static pattern WITHIN Quality, because any
object is a static pattern in the MoQ. Pirsig's statement simply re-affirms
this is true (even) for any intellectual pattern we call truth.
dmb says:
I'm quite sure that you're wrong about that. If that were the case, there would
be no important difference between the conception of truth under SOM (the
problem) and the conception of truth under the MOQ (the solution). This is my
whole point. There are two distinctly different theories of truth with tow
distinctly different metaphysical frameworks. Like Marsha, apparently, you are
confusing or conflating the two - and/or denying that there is any important
distinction between the two. The rejected theory (SOM) says truth is what
corresponds to the one and only objective reality while the replacement says
there is no such thing as objective reality. Instead, truths are only true in
relation to experience or Quality. These two theories of truth operate from two
completely different metaphysical frameworks. You can see this contrast in
Pirsig's statements. Obviously, it would be contradictory to claim that
Pirsig's rejection of objective truth is itself objectively true. I'm simply
trying to be accurate with respect to Pirsig's meaning. These objections are
bogus because they are predicated on half-baked notion that definitions,
clarity, coherence aren't just signs of intellectual excellence but instead are
mistaken for claims to objectivity.
“. . . the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth.
If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're
permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to the
'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. [This is widely
known as the correspondence theory of truth - anyone can look it up.] But 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 with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this
explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes
along."
This is where we see the contrast between objective truth or absolute truth
(SOM) and the MOQ's provisional and plural truths. This latter theory of truth
does not mean that truth is meaningless or whimsical. This is not an
endorsement of relativism because Pragmatism is a method for settling
metaphysical disputes, with logical and empirical standards.
Ian said:
... I don't think it helps (unless you're looking for a fight) to focus on the
definition of truth - as if it had an "objective" definition. Given your
contribution on radical empiricism, I find it sad that you go after objective
definitions of Pirsigian terms - like Pirsig's bulldog. Like an analytic
philosopher intent on getting his teeth into definitive, objective views of
reality - paradoxically, the antithesis of what the MoQ is about.
dmb says:
Again, the pragmatic theory of truth is OPPOSED to objectivity and is meant to
REPLACE the objective Truth of SOM. It seems that you and Marsha have a very
strange idea of what objectivity means. You seem to think that the rejection of
objectivity is also a rejection of accuracy and precision. You and Marsha are
characterizing my attempts to make these distinctions clear as a form of
objectivity, as if careful thinking is some kind of SOM disease. The MOQ is not
an excuse to be a sloppy, careless thinker. Rejecting SOM's theory of truth
does not mean that that concepts and definitions and intellectual coherence are
unimportant. And, beside all that, in this case I focused on the MOQ's
definition of truth simply because MARSHA ASKED FOR IT!
Ian said:
You see those of us who reject your objective analysis as dodging your
arguments - in a sense we are. We are dodging their analytical premise that
demands all valid arguments are based on objective definitions.
dmb says:
Yep, this is what I was just saying. That's a fatal mistake, right there.
You're confusing clarity of thought with objective definitions. Apparently, you
and Marsha think that rejecting objectivity is the same thing as rejecting
intellectual quality. That is an epic blunder because the MOQ's pragmatic
theory of truth is a crucial piece of Pirsig's overall aim, which is the
improve and expand rationality itself. This misconception - that the use of
accuracy and precision with respect to Pirsig's concepts is the same thing as
objective truth - creates an impossible situation wherein the actual size and
shape of ideas no longer matters and the truth is just whatever please me
personally. That is NOT the pragmatic theory of truth. That is the worst kind
of vacuous relativism. And I think this is a very self-serving position for
anyone who wishes to be relieved of the burden of thinking and communicating
clearly.
"The difference between a good mechanic and bad one, like the difference
between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely this ability to SELECT
the good facts from the bad ones on the basis of quality. He has to CARE! This
is an ability about which formal traditional scientific method has nothing to
say. It's long past time to take a closer look at the qualitative preselection
of facts which has seemed so scrupulously ignored by those who make so much the
these facts after they are 'observed'. I think that it will be found that a
formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the scientific process doesn't
destroy the empirical vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and brings
it far closer to actual scientific practice." (ZAMM 281-2, emphasis is
Pirsig's)
Pirsig books are not different from math or bike repair in this sense. You
gotta get down in there and you gotta care about what is and isn't right. We
get this same lesson over and over again. The art of rhetoric, the art of
mountain climbing, the art of motorcycle maintenance, the art of mathematics,
the art of the scientific process, truth as art in a gallery, the art of
rationality itself. Instead of turning philosophy into an art form, Marsha has,
in effect, dismissed intellectual excellence in favor of her own careless,
unintelligible drivel. She cannot or will not construct a coherent sentence.
Equating opposed terms or opposing equal terms isn't even a philosophical
issue. It's just a matter of misusing terms, a matter of carelessness and
sloppiness with respect to the meaning of Pirsig's words.
Rejecting objectivity and it's correspondence theory of truth does not give us
permission to be stupid or apathetic.
Ironically, Marsha is relying on this confused misconception to resist and
reject the corrections and criticisms of that misconception. She (and you,
apparently) is misusing the rejection of objective truth to reject the idea
that she could be wrong about the meaning of truth in the MOQ. If there is no
objective truth, you figure, then the pragmatic truth doesn't really count as
truth. Under this confused conception, being clear and accurate about the
pragmatic theory of truth, which rejects objectivity, is viewed as an attempt
to be objective about this rejection of objectivity. You and Marsha are
rejecting my attempts to carefully analyze Pirsig's solution, apparently,
because you think that careful analysis is the problem. You think, apparently,
that the ability to distinguish one idea from another is the same thing as
objectivity.
That is really confused and it leads directly to a profoundly anti-intellectual
nihilism. Regardless of the metaphysical framework, muddled nonsense is nothing
to be proud of. Since Pirsig tells us that motorcycle repair is a miniature
study in the art of rationality itself, I think it's not just safe but right
and correct to look at the following quotes about "craftsmanship in all the
technical arts" as an analogy for the art of rationality itself.
"It is this identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical
arts. And it is this identity that modern, dualistically conceived technology
lacks. The creator of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The
owner of it feels no particular sense of identity with it, The user feels no
particular sense of identity with it. Hence, by Phaedrus' definition, it has no
Quality." (ZAMM 290-291)
"The way to solve the conflict between human values and technological needs is
not to run away from technology. That's impossible. The way to resolve the
conflict is to break down the barriers of dualistic thought that prevent a real
understanding of what technology is - not an exploitation of nature, but a
fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that
transcends both. (like the first airplane flight or the first steps on the
moon.) ...But this transcendence should also occur at the individual level, on
a personal basis, in one's own life, in a less dramatic way." (ZAMM 291)
To say, "I'm not interested in the truth" is to say "I don't care about the
truth". This is to say, "I don't care about intellectual quality" or "I cannot
identify with intellectual craftsmanship" or "I am alienated from philosophical
work".
Honestly, I can't imagine how it would be possible to be more mistaken. It's
almost a direct inversion of the MOQ's central point and purpose. The expansion
and improvement of rationality is transformed by Marsha's hand into a big pile
of carelessly slapped together anti-intellectual nonsense. It's pure drivel.
It's fundamentally hostile to philosophy in general and the MOQ in particular.
In other words, it has no Quality.
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
