On the issue of truth, I believe that either Pirsig was VERY misunderstood
or VERY wrong.
Platt wrote:
> The question of truth (and the reason I brought up the subject) is directly
> related to the question of reality. For Pirsig, truth is an intellectual
> pattern (an
> intellectual reality) within a larger entity called Quality. To him there are
> many truths, some good, some not so good, with a good one being one that
> is logical, empirical and brief. So long as one understands the inherent
> weaknesses of logic, empiricism and brevity, Pirsig's definition of a "good"
> truth is about as good as it gets. The point is there's no truth "out there."
> Just as only an individual can respond to Dynamic Quality, only an individual
> can determine truth from falsehood, reality from illusion.
This is pretty much the MOQ's standard view of truth, and I'll treat as
such. The problem with it is that it's highly ambiguous. There seem to be
two very distinct interpretations possible. I'm pretty sure I know which
one Platt holds (the one which I reject vehemently), but I don't think
Pirsig's position is quite as clear. I had always assumed that he and I
were in agreement, but now that you present this alternate interpretation,
I'm not so sure. This is why I say that I believe that he is either
misunderstood (by Platt and many others) or simply wrong.
Here is my interpretation: Truth is only an intellectual pattern in so far
as we are talking about thought constructs (i.e. theories, models, etc.). I
think that this was Pirsig's point in ZAMM when he talks about the theory of
gravity not existing before Newton came along and constucted it. After all,
gravity is just a way of explaining a great number of observations.
However, these observations that lead to theories have to come from
somewhere. If we're going to say that they're just products of our mind
(i.e. intellectual patterns), then we're reverting to Berkleyian Idealism
and that certainly doesn't jive with MOQ. Conversely, if we say that they
are merely reflections of the "material world" we also run into problems
since "the material world" is "objective" and so the reason why some things
have value and others do not is left unexplained. Pirsig's solution is that
observations arrise from patterns of value. This is what I mean when I say
that truth is "out there". Patterns of value are "out there" and they are
what we observe. The idea of multiple truths is simply absurd if it means
what I think it means. Either Bill Clinton is the President of the United
States or he isn't. This isn't an intellectual construct. It's a fact.
But perhaps this isn't what is meant by multiple truths. If someone could
explain it better to me, I would be very happy. If you could use examples
where there is more than one truth, that would also be helpful.
- Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST