Hi Ron 25 nov 2012 kl. 04:27 skrev X Acto <[email protected]>:
> > > 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. > >> 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... >> >> >> 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. > > That's right, over and over I say that "Betterness", something with Quality, is what is of the best amount, best shape and related to something that fits it, in the best moment. Three dimensions in time. Just like words, a screw or your daily meal. Some people talk too much, or too less. Some are using very strange words or put the sentences in wrong order. Some are talking to wrong people. Some say good things but too early or too late. I could think of a lot of examples of bad rhetorics here, but the Balance of these three is "Betterness". Mark talk too much and say too little, Marsha is a little trick, dmb's contributions are very correct but it just doesn't fit M's thinking. Still I hope for the best to happen, that they one day will understand each other. A good screw must have perfect size, perfect shape and be applied to the motorcycle when the owner needs it, to be of good quality. Enough food, well composed and served to the right person, in time. We are facing this situation several times every day. Examples of static patterns AND dynamic quality at work, together. Understanding MOQ, the four levels and the difference beetween dynamic and static quality is a good start. Just give your self a second and take a look at your lunch today with this in mind. Oh, by the way, of course we can threw the food away, (kill the patterns) to learn how hungry we are for tasty meals some time, but if we are overdoing it we will starve to death and the experience from the experiment will vanish. Staying alive is crucial for the dynamic quality by humanity. JanAnders > .. > > .. > 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
