Hi Everyone:
Some very interesting takes from the group on the subject of truth.
Diana put the question in perspective by pointing out that Pirsig refers to
�metaphysical truths,� �sets of truths� and �intellectual realities� as opposed
to different truths at different levels of evolution.
Jonathan made an essential distinction about SOM truth which in the SOM
world is often considered as synonymous with existence. It�s well to keep in
mind that what exists is not always what is true (real) as Jonathan�s
example of �Little Red Riding Hood� aptly demonstrated.
Where I saw the most significant disagreement among the group was
summed up by Matthew when he insisted on a �truth out there,� independent
of human observers. David B. also suggested a reality prior to humans by
assigning some truths exclusively to the physical and biological levels, while
John�s explanation was full of �encounters� with ideas and objects, indicating
a self/other world premise.
In contrast, Denis rules out an independent universe: �We don�t need
subjects and objects anymore.� Peter agreed: �The best each of us can
attain is a well-tuned subjective viewpoint.� Jamie said, �Each respective
story holds higher respective value betterness for each respective observer,�
and Roger left no doubt about his view by saying, �Reality is based on
experience.� Perhaps Horse summed it up best: �Reality IS. We are created
by reality as much as we create it and there are as many versions of it as
there are participants.� Jonathan and Ken also appeared to agree to a
participatory reality. Ken wrote, �We, each of us, received all of these inputs
from which we must severally extract our own individual Truths,� and
Jonathan opined, �Putting Quality first makes it clear that selecting the truth
is a Quality choice for the best explanation.�
Interestingly, Struan, our resident MoQ critic, had nothing to say on the
subject. But John took up the slack by throwing down the following gauntlet
to us believers: �So at the end of the day, I contest Pirsig�s view that
everyone knows quality when they see it . . . Intellectual discrimination of the
�best� quality is therefore inadequate. �
To which I reply that John obviously knows quality when he sees it because
he believes his view possesses higher quality than Pirsig�s. But I don�t think
he wants us to bow to him as the sole arbiter of quality, thus weakening, if
not outright contradicting, his argument.
But the main point is that now, in addition to the SOM truth -- the truth of an
independent universe �out there� that many of us grew up believing was the
only truth � we now have with the MoQ an intellectually viable challenger. If
there weren�t many truths before, there are now. And the more we know, the
more truths we see�scientific truth, mathematical truth, logical truth, �adopt
or die� truth (Popper), aesthetic truth, revealed truth and of course, MoQ truth.
Yet, (and here�s where I get flummoxed) every attempt to do away with a
single truth invariable invokes a single truth. Am I too locked into logic? Does
any one see a way out of the contradiction of asserting it�s true there are
many truths?
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
