dmb said to Marsha:
...That's just a fraction of the things Pirsig has said about intellect. One of
his central aims, if not the most important one of all, is a root expansion of
rationality. By equating his conception of intellectual quality with SOM, you
have certainly missed the point of his work in a very big way.
Marsha replied:
No more than you missing the point of my post. I appreciate that you have a
favored way of interpreting the MoQ, but there should be no need for others to
be constrained by your perspective. "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the
Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth."...Your
perspective, assertions and opinions are not to be taken as Scripture.
dmb says:
Your response is further evidence of the same confusion. The line you are
quoting makes a distinction between SOM and the MOQ. Pirsig is in the midst of
rejecting the correspondence theory of truth, which does "insist on a single
exclusive truth". SOM insists that there is a single, exclusive, objective
truth, the one that corresponds to objective reality. In fact, that's what
Pirsig says in the very next sentence. "If subjects and objects are held to be
the ultimate reality then were permitted only one construction of things - that
which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are
unreal."
This is not what I'm saying at all. This is just another case where you're
equating SOM with anything intellectual. It's one thing to insist that an idea
or a claim or an interpretation is wrong but to claim that there is only one
way to be right is quite another thing altogether. The MOQ offers a different
theory of truth, a pragmatic, pluralistic theory of truth and this one of the
areas I've studied in detail. And considering the number of times have I quoted
Pirsig aligning himself with James's theory of truth, your complaint seems
incredibly disingenuous, to put it politely.
The explanation he offers in chapter 8 is only slightly restated in chapter 29.
In the first explanation Pirsig says, "if Quality or excellence is seen as the
ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to
exist," and he says, "there are many sets of intellectual reality in existence
and we can perceive some to have more quality than others". In chapter 29,
Quality is put at the center once again. "Truth is a static intellectual
pattern within a larger entity called Quality," he says, and "the good to which
truth is subordinate is intellectual and Dynamic Quality". He repeats this same
idea in the Copleston annotations too.
"The MOQ does not turn its back on the empiricist belief that the more we
analyse, the closer we approach to truth. Truth is the highest quality static
intellectual pattern and analysis has shown over and over again historically
that it improves the quality of intellectual patterns."
Yes, it's "possible for more than one set of truths to exist". That's what the
pragmatic theory of truth says. Truth is plural and provisional, not exclusive
or eternal but still "we can perceive some to have more quality than others".
To criticize incoherent and inconsistent ideas involves an analysis of the lack
of intellectual quality but in no way commits a person to SOM, the
correspondence theory of truth. It's certainly not a demand for "blind
obedience" nor does it "suppress Dynamic change". But misunderstandings and
incoherent ideas will certainly prevent Dynamic change.
It's looks like you're stuck, doing circles around a false dilemma. You seems
to thing there is either a single exclusive Truth or no truth standards at all.
Rejecting SOM and the correspondence theory of truth does not mean that nobody
can ever be wrong anything. It doesn't mean that everyone has their own private
truth. It doesn't mean your claims are beyond criticism. It doesn't mean that
people will sometimes say things that make no sense, that are logically
contradictory, that confuses one thing with another. That's all my criticism is
about, the lack of intellectual quality in your thoughts and words. The MOQ
does not give anyone permission to spew drivel or nonsense.
"The MOQ does not turn its back on the empiricist belief that the more we
analyse, the closer we approach to truth. Truth is the highest quality static
intellectual pattern and analysis has shown over and over again historically
that it improves the quality of intellectual patterns."
Long story, short.
This is just one more case wherein you misconstrue the rejection of SOM as a
rejection of intellectual quality in general. You are still treating the cure
as if it were the disease. That makes no sense and I'm trying to show you why
it makes no sense. That is a bogus equation that undermines the MOQ. Why can't
you just admit that you might be wrong and try, for once, to it think through
honestly? I mean, you can't really believe that the MOQ's truth is just
whatever anyone thinks. Don't you have any standards of truth that go beyond
your own personal experience? That is the worst kind of relativism, if not
solipsism. Nobody worth talking to is going to respect this kind of nonsense.
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
