Roger and anyone interested in the ultimate, final and only truth, which
only I know: (Just kidding.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com [SMTP:RISKYBIZ9@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 9:02 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD truth
>
>
>
> David, your attempt to equate 'many truths' with "vague and irrational
> views"
> and with a "whatever seems right until tomorrow" attitude... was a gross
> distortion. No reasonable member of this forum is suggesting that there is
>
> quality in vague and irrational views.
>
[David Buchanan] Whew! Good. At least we agree on that much; Vague
and irrational views aren't the same as a high quality intellectual
description. And to think otherwise is unreasonable. Yes, we agree. But I
have to say right up front that I feel a little cheated. I feel that I've
shown you mine, but you won't show me yours. I mean, I offered a pretty
detailed explaination of the meaning of Pirsig's "many truths", which you
barely even mention in your response. Your reply included a reasonable and
relevant Pirsig quote, but you offer nothing at all in terms of an
explaination. You don't say why you think the quote supports your view and
not mine, and frankly I don't see it. I mean, obviously we both read the
book and we both imagine that Pirsig's words support our conflicting views.
So just dropping a quote without any explaination really doesn't help to
clarify. You know what I mean? Our disagreement pivots on the interpetation,
which you simply don't provide. You provided the right quote, but then just
left it there without commment and moved on to another issue with Matthew.
This is the kind of thing I'm refering to when I complain about folks being
vague. I'll get to the irrational part later.
> Your attempt to then explain the many truths concept by limiting it to the
>
> four levels of the MOQ also distorts and oversimplifies the MOQ, and
> worse,
> it wraps it in objectivity. Pirsig's own words are quite different than
> what
> you offer as a solution....
>
[David Buchanan] Now that's just unfair. I wasn't suggesting any
limits about anything. I was describing the meaning of "many truths" in
terms of the MOQ, in terms of the evolution of the levels of static
patterns. Isn't anything less than that just bogus? And it was certainly NOT
wrapped in objectivity. The main thrust of the whole post was that there are
many truths precisely because there are many worlds! Did you even read the
post? Do I dare say that your suggestion is just not rational? That would be
going to far, but I honestly don't see any reason for saying my view is
limited, distorted, over-simplified, or wrapped in objectivity. And you
don't give me any reason either. I never claimed that my post was supposed
to be a complete and exauhstive description of the MOQ, I was just trying to
present a full range of examples, examples from each of the four levels, so
as to contradict the notion that "many truths" are confined to the
intellectual level. I also explicitly admitted that it was more complicated
at the higher levels and that there are probably not just the four we
discuss. And finally, I don't think Pirsig's words are different than what
I offered yesterday at all, even though I was not even thinking of this
quote at the time. And so we finally get to the words under dispute...
> "Unlike SOM, the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive 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. Then one doesn't seek the absolute
> 'Truth.'
>
>
[David Buchanan] It only seems to support what I wrote yesterday.
And imagine how frustrating and vague it would be if I were to stop there
and provide no explaination of how or why I think it supports my views....
Pirsig is comparing two different metaphysical systems, two different sets
of intellectual static patterns that explain everything. He's saying that
SOM only allows one truth, objective reality. The MOQ, on the other hand
rejects subjects and objects as ULTIMATE and says that instead, "quality or
excellence is the ultimate reality" where "it becomes possible for more than
one set of truths to exists." I think this summarized what I tried to say
in detail yesterday. I presented the various sets of truth as the static
levels of quality, each with their values, each existing as a world of its
own, with its own set of rules, its own ultimate truth. I don't think there
is any good reason to think Pirsig's words are "quite different than" what I
said yesterday. Nor do you provide any reason.
Ever seen that Monty Python skit? "But that's not an arguement, its
mere condradiction!" "It is not!" "Is so." "Is not." It really was quite
funny.
> One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things
> with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this
> explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better
> comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way he
> examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find which one
> is
> the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those of value." (Ch 8)
>
[David Buchanan] Right. I like the gallery analogy because it show
how absurd it can be. To go into a gallery in search of the one "real"
painting, HA! That's almost as funny as the Monty Python skit. All paintings
are "real", just as all metaphysical systems are real. Ideas are as real as
rocks, right? But the first part, the provisionality, it where we disagree -
I think. I've accused no one in particular of using this provionality as a
invalid justification of that "whatever seems right until tommorrow"
attitude. But again, he's comparing two metaphysical systems, two different
intellectual explanations of things and so the provisionality he refers to
is larger than just the shifting opinions of individuals. I think his "if
the past is any guide" is a sure tip off to the fact that he's talking about
historical shifts like the scientific revolution. Yes, it happens to
individuals as well, historical change can't occur without people, and we go
through evolutionary stages just like reality itself, but these
complications and complexities don't contradict the notion that "truth" is
provisional because of the ongoing evolutionary nature of things.
Yes, there are many truths because there are many kinds of static
quality at many levels and each of those truth is provisional because static
quality continues to unfold. But the intellectual static patterns of today,
of the present moment in history can not be ignored, dismissed or
contradicted if we wish to be taken seriously as a thinker or as a
philoshopher. Don't you think?It is the same at all levels right? Its all
about excellence, right? A healthy organism is a high quality set of bio
static patterns, they are measured against biological values. A strong and
thriving culture is a set of high quality social patterns and their
excellence is judged in terms of truth at that level. Likewise, "the highest
quality intellectual explanation of things" has to honor the values at the
fourth level. There are many worlds and many levels of truth, but that
doesn't mean that every organism is healthy, that every society is vital or
that every idea is correct.
>
> He then goes on to explain the MOQ and SOM are both 'sets of coordinates'
> to
> interpret reality.
>
[David Buchanan] Yea, so what does that mean in terms of our
debate. Again with the vague evasions. See what I mean about this guy?! But
seriously, Roger, what I really need from you is not quotes or cut-n-paste
jobs. It doesn't hurt, but its not enough either. I've got to see some
explanations, descriptions or interpetations IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Otherwise,
we'll never really get down to the source of the debate, you know?
>
> Matthew, you are right that there is a measuring stick for truth. And you
>
> are right that it is direct experience against which we ultimately
> measure.
> But there are infinite ways to paint a picture of experience. Which
> details
> of the experience are important? Which brushstrokes best capture the
> experience? What is the background of the painter and of the audience?
> How
> can the experience be depicted in such a way as to not contradict other
> paintings? How can two dimensions best represent the four of the original
>
> event? Economy. Simplicity. Elegance. Insight .
>
[David Buchanan] I have to respond even though you're addressing
Matthew. In light of what I've just written, its clear that we disagree that
"direct experience" is the ultimate measuring stick for truth. I've just
tried to make the case that truth is different at each level because they
are each separate moral empires, worlds within worlds, and that the
excellence or truth of each static pattern has to be determined within the
values at that level. You, on the ohter hand, are pointing to direct
experience as a yard stick? Aren't you refering to the "pre-intellectual
cutting edge of reality"?
How can intellectual static patterns be judged by pre-intellectual
experience? Surely you can see the contradiction is this, even if you don't
buy my "many worlds" explanation. This is an example of the kind of thing
I'm refering to when I complain about irrational views. An unpatterned
pre-intellectual judge of intellectual patterns? You've got to mean
something else, because this is just not rational. Direct experience of DQ
is not the yard stick, it is the creator of intellectual static patterns -
the ground and source and goal of all static quality.
I suppose you could say there are "infinite ways to paint a picture
of reality", but what does it really mean? Obviously you're not suggesting
that every painting is beautiful materpiece. We have some standards to agree
on; Economy, simplicity, elegance and insight. But what about that extremely
important standard? Pirsig's quote compares two metaphysical systems and it
seems the contest is really about the power and ability to explain things.
Isn't that the heart of the value in intellectual values?
I honestly don't see how "an infinite number of ways to paint direct
experience" explains anything at all. It just seems like a way to avoid
explanations altogether. This is the kind of notion I'm refering to when I
complain about the "many opinions" interpetation. I realize you don't
present it that way, I'm just telling you what it looks like when its
presented without explanation. When you say "direct experience", It seems
like you're talking about something to which one else could ever have
access. The ultimate test of truth is direct experience? Do you mean just
your direct experience or do you mean everybody's? How would we get
everybody's direct experience together? Maybe through language and ideas -
which are static patterns of social and intellectual quality? Oh, but then
it wouldn't be direct experience, would it?
To exist with your own personal and private static patterns is
Pirsig's description of INSANITY, not many truths. (Yoohoo, Horse and Denis,
I'm talking to you too.) To have a different truth for every person would
only mean that every person is SICK and CRAZY. Clearly, this would be very
far from excellent.
I'm just trying to provoke a real conversation, please don't take
any of this as a personal insult. In fact, the whole idea here is that clear
ideas matter so much more than mere opinion. I'm interested in discussing
the nature of intellectual quality and hope than I've even demonstated that
talking about the MOQ is impossible without it.
Tanks for your Thyme, DMB
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