> 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. >
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. Ron: First of all Phardrus, the Greek namesake does not mean wolf, that was a misinterpretation BUT Phaedrus the Socratic dialog between Socrates and the young philosopher who is entranced and "turned on" by a speach he heard is about what makes the best sort of oration, in otherwords, what makes a good rhetorical explanation "good"? which brings to the topic of clarity. Now lets look at your constant gripe that no one , as you judge them, is talking about Quality. Remember since Quality IS reality "every last bit" ALL conversations are based in it so that we can never fail to discuss it. Consequently anyone with a firm grasp of what Pirsig means by the term "Quality" would never make that accusation. On to "thinking differently" the subject matter IS rationality since rationality concerns what is best but what Pirsig does attack is rigid thinking and focuses reason on rationality, why we hold the beliefs that we posses, Not just in the west but any conditioned rigid assumption. Now your posts are full of assumption about a mans work you do not clearly understand, your explanations are vague general and obtuse. As I recomended before, gain a better understanding by doing a throrough re-reading, create a better backround by reading the works of Plato and Aristotle not to mention W.James. at the very least, understand the problems being addressed. > > 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... > Mark: 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. Ron: I had made an arguement similar to this earlier but what I failed to take into account was that the term "monism" as Pirsig uses it, refers to a totality of experience not so much a unified whole. But MoQ is on the side of both freewill AND determinism a freedom through constraint, if you do care to review the archives on the subjectmatter It was a good thread and got very heated. "Truth" "should" not be objectified, to do so is folly BUT truth as the highest form of Quality is what we aim for what we strive towards and what we agree apon. "Truth is the starting point" as you say. > > > > > > 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. Ron: Mark, I could run you ragged with explaining "Experience is something we create" but I wont, because I think I understand your meaning and I absolutly hate when people use it as a rhetorical device to derail the conversation in the attempt to garner a "win". Because what you re-iterate is what Whitehead said in the quote I will assume we are on the same page. Mark: 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. Ron: Generally, when we speak of the ancients in refference to the good we are speaking about the Greeks in western culture. A read philosopher would know this. But what you bring up is a good example of what is meant when we refer to truth extending past the individual experience. To the ones killing "Indians" they are killing them for the greater good from their own perspective but there is a good that transcends that one one that says the killing of any human being is wrong. Both are true but which truth is better? Mark: 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? Ron: Perennial, per annum, refers to that which persists through change, that which endures, it's only esoteric if you are too lazy to look it up in a dictionary therefore I would not expect you to see the logic. As with the rest of your post you are sloppy lazy and undisciplined. Put forth some effort would you? .. 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
