Matthew and the truth seekers,
Matthew wrote
>Interesting comment. You seem to have revealed the paradox of multiple
>truths. If I'm right that there is only one way that reality is, then we
>can simply dismiss all of your explanations of multiple truths as false.
>However, if you are right that there are multiple truths, then all of our
>explanations are true, including mine that there is only one truth! After
>all, my explanation does pass the test of truthfulness. It is logical,
>empirical, and brief. So I guess in your system, there can both be one
>truth and multiple truths at the same time. It doesn't make sense to me,
>but if you accept it, then there's no reason why you should be disagreeing
>with me. I'm just as right as you are!
The idea of multiple truths doesn't mean that anything can be true, but I do
think you have got a good point in saying that quality is the only truth.
Pirsig himself says Quality is the ultimate reality in the same paragraph as
he says there can be more than one set of truths. That seems like a bit of
a contradiction to me.
But it still remains that the highest quality answer to certain questions can
be that two contradictory things exist. The single highest quality answer
to the free will question for example is that we do and we do not have
free will. Both things are true. You cannot reasonably argue that it doesn't
exist because it appears that way to everyone, but you cannot reasonably
argue that it does if you also accept that experience comes before the subject.
To say that either one is exclusively true doesn't pass the tests of logic,
empricism and brevity. The only answer that does is to say that they are
both true but they are different types of truth.
As for whether Clinton is President or not, Roger already pointed out why
that statement isn't necessarily true. Of course by convention we can agree
on the pattern Clinton and the SOM ideas that he has a physical body and
controlling mind and exists at a fixed time and place. But if I want to be
rigorously intellectual about it I can refuse that convention and insist that
you define your question precisely. That's something that you'll never be
able to do because it just isn't possible to define precisely where Clinton
begins and where he ends, and how can you logically expect anyone to give
a definite answer to a question when you can't define your terms? So there
are two truths. I can't seriously deny that Clinton is President, but I also
have to say that that is a statement based on unproven and unverifiable
assumptions.
Actually I agree with you that many truths isn't a very strong concept.
The word truth implies that there is only one after all and it might have
been better if Pirsig had just stuck to the word value. I don't think the
case is closed on the matter, it just seems to me that, particularly in the
question of free will, it just isn't possible to give one truth that passes
the tests. The SOM insists that there is one logical version of reality, yet
when we examine free will that just doesn't work and the only way to
make sense of it is to disagree with the very assumption that there is
one logical explanation. After all that's only an assumption.The only truth
that does make sense is more than one truth. If you can show that not
to be the case then please go ahead.
Diana
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
