DIANA wrote:
I agree Pirsig thinks the MOQ is a static intellectual pattern. I don�t think he
believes it�s true in the sense of corresponding to some external fact-world.
Agree. Pirsig specifically rejects the correspondence-to-an-external-world
theory as the only test of 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. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it
becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist.� (Lila, Chap. 8).
DIANA:
When he says truth is subordinated under Quality he�s talking about the
static intellectual pattern. There isn�t any other intermediate realm of truth, or
at least he certainly doesn�t mention any, and you�d have to redefine the
whole thing to include one.
Disagree. He mentions an intermediate realm of truth in the following
passage: �His favorite Christian mystic was Johannes Eckhart, who said,
�Wouldst thou be perfect, do not yelp about God.� Eckhart was pointing to a
profound mystic truth, but you can guess what a hand of applause it got from
the static authorities of the Church.� (Lila, Chap. 30.) Admittedly this is a
passing reference to a �mystic truth� but it�s similar to another passing
reference to a �code or Art.� that Pirsig also failed to develop. (Recall earlier
debates about a fifth level? One of my major disappointments in Pirsig�s
philosophy is how little he says specifically about art and the aesthetic
experience.)
DIANA:
I thought Peter was using overall truth as a synonym for Quality.
I thought he was referring to mystic truth.
DIANA:
Well I agree that understanding isn�t limited to logic or words, but I don�t see
the need to invent an entirely new category to explain this. What�s wrong
with Pirsig�s categories?
First, mystic truth isn�t entirely new. Second, in his letter to the Squad,
Pirsig encourages us to be creative. I think adding the categories of Truth
and Beauty under Quality but above the intellectual level as suggested in my
previous post would make the MOQ more complete.
DIANA:
I suppose he could have Quality Truth, but he actually seems to be trying
very hard to avoid that. Perhaps because it would have led to too much
confusion. He would just be painting himself into a corner if he were to say
Quality is Truth because then it seems to be saying Quality is an external
fact.
Agree. Which is why my solution�Truth and Beauty as species under the
genus Quality�makes sense.
DIANA:
Even Peter Lennox�s description of �everything-and-everywhere-ness� still
leaves itself open to the question, do you consider this description to be true?
Agree. Infinite regress is the inevitable end of the logic chain. (Related to
Godel�s Theorem). All the more reason to postulate an indescribable
�something.� Pirsig calls it Quality. Wilber calls it Spirit. Plato called it Ideal.
Jesus called it God. New Age calls it Love. Science calls it Chance and
Necessity. Call it what you will, logic demands it and experience agrees with
it. Maybe you can exclude Truth and Beauty from the indescribable
something, but most philosophers and religious/spiritual types associate
those concepts with it. Only science restricts truth to what can be
objectively verified, ignoring the self-contradiction that such a restriction is
not itself verifiable.
DIANA:
So what�s the point of the MOQ? The point is that it�s good. That�s all you
can say.
Is that true? Thanks again for making my point. Every attempt to deny truth
invokes a truth. Likewise, every attempt to deny Quality invokes it. That�s
why I see a connection and designate Truth as a species of Quality.
Somehow it seems to me we�ve got to get Peter�s �overall truth without
edges or limits� into the MOQ�the kind of truth that makes us certain that
Godel was right. If we squeeze it in with Quality, we risk painting ourselves
into a corner as you rightfully point out. If we make it an intellectual pattern,
we lose its unpatterned, unlimited character. There�s an inexplicable
essence about truth which all true statements share. It�s that essence I�d
like to see acknowledged in the MOQ.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
