dmb, The automobile, the airplane and the bicycle do not translate into a legitimate replacement for 'a static intellectual pattern'. The automobile, the airplane and the bicycle represent a straw man argument:
"A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counterargument. The term straw man derives from the use of scarecrows for military practice, such as charges. In reality, a scarecrow is far easier to defeat than an actual person. "The straw man argument, also called straw dog or scarecrow, deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side. This can be done by leaving out key points of an opposing argument, quoting a person’s words out of context, or presenting a particular person’s poor defense as the entire defense of an opposing side. In the worst case, a straw man is literally an imagined person who weakly defends an argument and can be easily defeated." http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm I posted two RMP quotes (statements made by Mr. Pirsig) where he uses the singular form of the verb 'to be' pertaining to 'truth'. Read the post. I made no additional points, but merely posted RMP's words. Read RMP's words. I doubt that he had a lapse in using the rules of grammar. Read the words slowing. There is no reason to accuse me of anything. Please note he also does not use 'static intellectual patterns', but used 'a static intellectual pattern'; that is also the singular usage. His words. RMP's words, not mine. If it conflicts with your Pirsig/James interpretation, it's not my problem. --- the two quotes --- "Truth is a [singular] static intellectual pattern [singular] within a larger entity called Quality. James had tried to make his pragmatism popular by getting it elected on the coattails of practicality. He was always eager to use such expressions as 'cash-value,' and 'results,' and 'profits,' in order to make pragmatism intelligible to 'the man in the street,' but this got James into hot water. Pragmatism was attacked by critics as an attempt to prostitute truth to the values of the marketplace. James was furious with this misunderstanding and he fought hard to correct the misinterpretation, but he never really overcame the attack. "What Phaedrus saw was that the Metaphysics of Quality avoided this attack by making it clear that the good to which truth is [singular] subordinate is intellectual and Dynamic Quality ..." (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 28) --- "The MOQ does not turn its back on the empiricist belief that the more we analyse, the closer we approach to truth. Truth is [singular] the highest quality static intellectual pattern [singular] and analysis has shown over and over again historically that it improves the quality of intellectual patterns." (RMP, 'Copleston Annotations') --- Marsha On May 27, 2013, at 12:09 PM, david buchanan wrote: > “. . . 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." > > > Ron said: > To conclude Truth [singular] (added by Marsha) connects with "is" which is > [verb] 1. 3rd person singular present indicative of be. "Be" verb (used > without object) 1. to exist or live 2. to take place; happen; occur: So > Marsha is asserting that Truth is a singular experience in process. One has > to ask then WHAT exactly IS this fixed eternal (singular)Truth? > > > > dmb says: > Okay, now this might come as a shock but I'm going to suggest that Marsha's > point defies the text, has no philosophical merit and even displays a basic > incompetence with respect to the use of the English language. That's usually > the case but this particular mistake is hilarious. > > In order to defy Pirsig's explicit rejection of singular truth, Marsha rests > her case on the meaning of the word "is". She points to sentences wherein > Pirsig says what "truth is", rather that what "truths are", and uses them to > conclude that truth is singular and not plural. > > Similarly, Marsha was reading the biography of Henry Ford. She came upon a > sentence which said, "the automobile is perhaps the most important invention > of the 20th century" and thereby came to the conclusion that there is only > one automobile. Same with the Wright brothers, the gents who perfected the > bicycle and invented the airplane. As we all knows, the bicycle is still very > popular and the airplane is crucial to our modern economy. Sure, it's not > easy for 300 million people to share the one and only bike that was ever > invented and that single aircraft has to do the work of a nation. But that's > just the way it "is", huh? > > This one really takes the cake. If there were an award given for most the > weakest, most ridiculous argument of the month, this would certainly be my > nominee. ___ 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
