Hi dmb, I would like to sort out what you mean by "experience" which you provide as a synonym for Quality. In common usage, experience is something which the body creates as a response to input. As such, it is separate to such "input".
I am not understanding of how you equate Quality with experience using this common understanding of the latter. Could you provide some input do that I can form an experience of what you are speaking of in terms of experience being related to Quality? I think the disconnect with me is in what you mean by "experience". Thanks! Mark On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:02 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
