Ron had posted: On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 7:27 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Mark had said: > > I would propose that there is only one Truth. The pragmatists have > relegated truths to usefulness which convert the basic meaning of truth to > something else. I have presented the self/serving aspect of pragmatists in > a previous post. > > When dmb requests an appropriate reading of Pirsig, he is pointing towards > interpretation. What often happens with any fundamental presentation of > Reality is the high jacking of such interpretation into dogma. This is the > danger I see with dmb's pronouncements. It would seem that he regards > himself as the True interpreter of Pisig's writings. This same thing > happened with Christianity where people had to go to priests in order to > understand the "true message". > > By its very teachings, MoQ is anti-dogmatic. The complete subjugation of > MoQ's intent into the realm of SQ, which seems to be dmb's intent with his > constant use of biblical quotes is not only counterproductive in a > discussion forum, but dangerous to MoQ. > > Dmb represents the academic arm of MoQ. His pronouncements should be > viewed in terms of such SQ. what he is lacking is the dynamic aspect of > what Pirsig presents. I am glad that Marsha takes the time to bring > balance to the discussion of Quality. > > Ron: > What is being called for is consistancy and clarity in meaning and if > clarity is the hallmark of a good explanation, contradiction runs > counter to that end. But lets look at some of the things that are being > brought to the table and see if we can salvage a philosophic discussion. > Because if the aim of rational thought concerns itself with what is best, > then what Marsha brings is not balance to a discussion of Quality nor you > Mark, for that matter. > Mark: What is being called for is convincing rhetoric which provides the reader with an awareness of Quality. This philosophy is based around Quality and a metaphysical argument is presented towards such end. I fail to see anything that has to do with Quality in Ron's post, so I must assume that it is simply an aside. Pirsig would be the first to say that what he underwent was a serious break in what is termed rational (or sane) thought. His tale is that of a hero who travels to far off lands, has adventures, and then comes back to reveal what he learned. In any discussion of Quality, we should remember that the subject matter is not always rational as the West would have it. We should also keep in mind that what Pirsig is presenting is an attempt to get us to think differently. MoQ is an attack on rational Western thought. Any balancing act must deal with this reality. Remember, Phaedrus was a wolf. > > dmb said: > > That's the meaning of "truth" in the MOQ. "Truth is a static > intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." > > > > Marsha replied: > > Sure, 'truth' is _a_ (one among many) intellectual static pattern of > value. A few definitions can be found in the dictionary. And? > > > > dmb says: > > What? You think truth is singular? You think there is only one truth? > That's absurd. Nobody has ever believed such a silly thing and for > pragmatists like Pirsig there are many truths, all of which are provisional > and invented - as opposed to eternal and discovered. > > Ron: > Well, if we are to take Dynamic Quality as eternal and discovered, that > which persists through time and extends beyond the individual experience > then we are indeed speaking about a singular truth, that which the monism > of MoQ is predicated upon... > Ron, the manner in which you describe DQ is so vague, that it does not lead the reader anywhere. Did you mean discovered? I am not sure what rationality that statement has. Perhaps you could elaborate on your description of DQ such that it makes a convincing argument. What you present above are a bunch of platitudes. Please spare me your mumbo-jumbo. This is a discussion of metaphysics, not a seance. If you read James, you will see very clear arguments where monism leads to determinism. MoQ is on the side of free will, or pluralism. For there to be free will there must be something for that will to act on. Monism does not provide for free will. Christianity is dualistic for this very reason. Perhaps Ron is confusing Monism with Monotheism. For each individual, truth is singular, and it has nothing to do with static patterns. It is that starting place through which we interpret existence. The static patterns are simply SQ phrases which, through agreement, a group of individuals will adhere to. They are modes of communication and part of social structure. Truth is truth, not something else. The problem with the West, is that it has objectified truth as being some thing, which it is not. Perhaps we should go back to all the discussions on truth and see if we got anywhere. Perhaps not... Truth cannot be objectified as some thing existing separate from us. To do so just brings confusion and war. > > > > > > dmb said previously: > > There is nothing logically contradictory about having an experience > while thinking at the same time. The idea here is to get them both working > TOGETHER. And doing that means putting them in their proper relation, > knowing which is which. > > Ron: > Right, as A.N. Whitehead asserted, :"We must construe our knowledge of the > appearent world as being an individual experience > of something which is more than personal. Nature is thus a totality > including individual experiences, so that we must reject the > distinction between nature as it really is and our experiences of it which > are purely psychological. Our experiences of the appearent world are nature > itself." Now there is a lot to chew on here and it has a quite a bit to say > on the matter of truth as a sort of singularity, the ancients exhaulted > truth as that which was the closest to the good, in other words truth is > not just one of many static patterns it is the best and if it is perennial > then there is something about it that persists through change, meaning that > some truths are better or truer than others, some truths are more than > personal they extend past the individual experience. > > Mark: > Let me be clear here. Experience is something we create. Experience does not float around in the ethers and then hit us. Our bodies create experience. Secondly, knowledge is also something we create and is part of experience. One cannot separate thoughts from experience since thinking IS experience. Therefore there is a false dichotomy here. Thirdly, everything is nature so it stands to reason that the experiences we create are natural. I do not see much to chew on, it is simply how these words are defined. There is a false dichotomy in the fanatic West made between man-made and natural. This is the objective separation of reality which MoQ does its best to alleviate. Truth is not bridled by the good. An indian massacre is truth. If we see an indians being slaughtered, it is true for us. We must be careful to distinguish between Truth and the Good. Otherwise we end up with a nonsensical metaphysics. I am not sure which "ancients" Ron is referring to. This statement of Ron's smells foul. Perhaps Ron could elaborate on what he means by the "ancients", I know of many ancients who did not subscribe to this nonsense. Perennial refers to esoteric. Ron is explaining that the subjective (from SOM) remains constant. However, I do not see the logic behind this. When Ron claims that some truths are better than others, I have no idea what he is going on about? Is he speaking of usefulness? If there is a truth that extends beyond the individual experience, then how does he know? Is Ron saying that some truths are not experienced? What kind of truths are those? It would seem that although Ron tries to provide a semblance of rational thought, he fails terribly. He provides us with statements that seem to be floating on their own. That is not rationality, that is poetry. In short, it does not seem that Ron has much grasp on the art of rational presentation. Perhaps rather than throw out platitudes he could learn how to present a rational argument. As it is, what he posted does not contribute to a metaphysics of Quality one bit. Sorry to be rough on Ron, but he needs to wake up. Cheers, Mark > > .. > > .. > 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
