Hey gang: I think that understanding Pirsig's concept of "many truth" is not
an easy thing. I also think it is one of the most widely abused terms,
usually brought out when someone is accused of being incorrect. It is used
as a personal defense against criticism and usually means something like...
"There are many truths, so my vague and irrational views are just as valid
as yours."
And when this non-sensical evasion is criticized, the rebuttal usually
involves the assertion that the critic's only alternative to this vagueness
is rigid orthodoxy and true believerism, as if the negation of an idea
automatically implies the assertion of its opposite. To deny this "many
opinions" interpetation doesn't mean that I think there is only ONE TRUTH
either. That's just specious reasoning.
I'm not so sure that I can say what it means, but I'll try...
Maybe it was Matthew who said the ground was texure to us, but terrain to an
ant. And then there was the idea that Bill Clinton is President only as far
as humans are concerned. I think these thoughts are a good way to open it
up, a good place to start. It can be misleading to stop there, as it might
lead a person to think its strictly a matter of perspective or view point,
which is too much like the over-simplified interpetation I'm trying to deny.
I think the MOQ is about transcending subjectivity (and objectivity), but
the "many opinions" version seems to glorify subjectivity at the expense of
everything else. Do I dare use that nasty old label; solipsism?
As I understand it, we can say there are "many truths" because there are
distinct levels of reality, and those truths are provisional because those
levels are all continuing to evolve. (DQ) I say the texture/terrain example
is a good place to start because the ant and the human are at different
levels. Likewise, the truth of Clinton's election is a human, social level
reality. And I think that the meaning of Pirsig's many truths concept lies
in the structure of his hierarchy of static patterns.
Atoms, organisms, cultures and intellect....INORG BIO SOC INTEL. Whatever.
Each level of static quality is a reality of its own. Each level has its own
set of truths - or rather each level IS a distinct set of truths. Inorganic
patterns of quality exist in their own world, so to speak. The decison to be
a particle or a wave is made Dynamically, but within the rules of the
inorganic level. In the re-vision of causality Pirsig says that "B VALUES
precondition A", rather than the mechanistic "A causes B". In both cases he
implies that there is some kind of awareness of Quality even at the first
level. Even inorganic patterns have their own "interior" space, thier own
minds, their own world view. (Naturally I'm being metaphorical here, not
scientific.)
Not to get ahead of myself, but it should be pointed out that the law of
Gravity and Einstein's E=mc2 are not inorganic patterns, they are sets of
intellectual patterns - and damn good ones at that. These are intellectual
descriptions of inorganic patterns, but are completely different than
inorganic patterns themselves.
Biological static patterns always include inorganic patterns. Cells are made
of molecules, but they transcend the inorganic world and therefore have an
entirely different set of truths, a different set of values, or rather they
ARE a different set of value patterns.
The social level has yet another world of values. It includes both the bio
and the inorg, but transcend them both. When the social level static
patterns evolved and came into existence a new world was thereby born. It
has its own set of truths that are different from the lower levels.
Here is a good place to point out how the many truths idea has real meaning
without giving into a "whatever seems right until tomorrow" attitude... On
the biological level sex is a very good thing. Maybe its about the best
thing biology ever came up with. Sex is good and reproduction and
perpetuation of the species is good. For the biological level this obvious
fact is its greatest truth or something like that. Now it is also true, on
the social level, that not cheating on your spouse or lover is a very good
thing. If having sex means cheating - well, now you've got two conflicting
truths. Its not so much that there is good sex and bad sex, biologically
speaking all sex is pretty damn great, but cheating is bad according to
social values. Pirsig's many truths idea does not allow us to say sex is bad
and cheating is good. That would just be a case of "many falsehoods" or
"many wrong opinions".
The social level of static quality is where we can begin to understand the
meaning of Clinton's Presidency. Clearly, the idea of many truths doesn't
allow us to contradict such obvious things. We have to honor the values and
truths at that level just as any other. It gets complicated at this level
because there is apparently more than one culture, or set of social values.
Societies seem like collective things, yet human social values are within
each of us individually. And its difficult to "see" social values with SOM
eyes. So much of that level has been dismissed as outdated superstition and
such, but doesn't society continue to evolve just like the other levels? Are
the molecules and organs in our bodies somehow outdated. Can we simply
dismiss any other level in such a way? Its pretty wierd when you think about
it. SOM lets us imagine that society's structure and institutions can be
re-invented overnight, as if they had no evolutionary history of their own,
as if they had no structure or meaning of their own. SOM let's us think
that, unlike the earth and stars, unlike our own bodies, we can create
societies out of our own sheer will. But I digress... Its just that its hard
to think about cultures and languages as social static patterns that evolved
BEFORE intellect had. SOM has us seeing these social structures as our own
haphazard inventions, rather that a level of reality that preceeds and
allows us to even form such thoughts about society! American culture exists,
therefore i think, therfore I am.
And then there is the intellectual level - which is the level of reality in
which philosophy takes place. According to Pirsig, Wilber and many others
there are levels beyond the intellect, but the intellectual level has been
achieved by many individuals and that is sort of where we're at
collectively. Some people haven't made it to the fourth world, and don't
live in the fourth level of values. But on average, that's where we're at.
And to participate in this forum, even just to lurk well, requires a decent
intellect, no? We have to honor the truth and values of that level if we
wish to discuss metaphysics, right? And the int level is the most open to
DQ, the most rappidly evolving level, but still it has rules. Intellectual
static quality is a world of its own too. And if we wish to transcend the
intellectual level, we still have to include and incorporate it. Whatever
higher levels or Dynamic encounters we might achieve, we still have to honor
each of the levels that got us there. Cells need atoms and mystic need clear
and rational concepts.
Yes, there are many truths. There are many levels of reality. There are
worlds within worlds. The trick is not to subscribed to some true believer's
orthodoxy, not to invent a private truth of your own, but to "see" all those
truths for what they are. They're different worlds of static Quality.
Hopefully we live in all of them.
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