> Paul said to Dan: > > ... I said "assimilating a mystic experience" by which I mean something > like, having temporarily "left the mythos" one should not see the > shattering of intellectual patterns as some kind of permanent destruction > of "reality." [Paul previously]: I’m suggesting that the MOQ provides the > basis of a reconstructed mythos, not a means of escape from it. And to > reiterate - this reconstructed mythos does contain subjects and objects but > they become taxonomical instead of ontological or epistemological terms, > simply referring to types (i.e. levels) of value, as you know. > > > dmb says: > > Right. Pirsig says anyone who live outside the mythos is insane. If think > you can live outside the mythos, then don't understand what the mythos is, > he says. That's another reason why the 180 degree enlightenment does not > work. That's why LILA still has to have a theory of truth, despite the > rejection of Objective Truth and the rejection of fixed and eternal Truth. > It's not very hard to see how 360 degree enlightenment comes back around to > everyday life and truth becomes a species of value, a particular kind of > evolving static good where DQ is still the generator. "Truth is a static > intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." This 180 > degree enlightenment, wherein these static patterns are more or less > dismissed (as "hypothetical", as illusions, as ghostly in the unreal and > imaginary sense) leads to a relativism, a nihilism and an > anti-intellectualism. >
[Ron sez] Seeing how this topic of conversation gets derailed and hijacked by the 180 degree point of view, I would like to ask what form or function within the context of mythos reconstruction would serve best in the radically empirical method of falsifying truth theories or to be more precise finding which theories are better than others. Do either of you see dialectic playing a role in this process of inquirey? Also I think what has to be kept in mind when people connect correspondence theory with pragmatic truth is that a pragmatist does not seek an ideas agreement with experience so much as a discerning which ideas have the most meaning in the flow of said experience. Those with the most meaning being said to "agree". I wonder if you also would agree. I believe if an agreement can be arrived at in this context we can continue the reconstruction with greater clarity, or at the very least advance the discussion on this topic which does not get nearly enough attention. .. 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
