John, Roger, Diana and Y'all: I've only got a little time, so most of John's
original hasn't been reproduced. Just a few thoughts on a few points....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Beasley [SMTP:beasley@qld.cc]
> Sent: None
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD Truth
>
> JB SAID
> This debate is getting exciting! At last we are exploring the fundamental
> assumptions of the
> MOQ, and what is coming out is fascinating. So while I have a basic
> mistrust of many of the
> assumptions implicit in the MOQ, perhaps I can suspend judgement on those
> for a moment
> and come within the paradigm for a while. I'll make clear when I'm leaving
> again.
>
[David Buchanan] Yea, I thought it was getting exciting too! I
thought Roger and I were really getting down to the fundamental assumptions.
In fact, this is a great opening for something like an apology... I was so
"into" the game that I felt ripped-off by Roger's apparent evasion, by his
refusal to offer explanation. I hope you'll forgive me, Roger. And while I'm
at it, this goes for you too John... But hey, you're not childred. So what
if the gloves come off now and then. Anyway, on to the substance... John,
interesting way to put it; "come within the paradigm". And it seems that
such a frame of mind is the only way to discuss the picture in any depth.
You gots to get inside to know what its like, that's why "objective"
anthropology is nearly oxymoronic.
> JB SAID
> It is not just "the truth" that "is different at each level", but quality
> itself.
> Quality is not homogenous. It is different in different levels, (and I
> agree with David that there
> are more levels than Pirsig's four). The quality of an essay is indeed
> quite different to the
> quality of an organism. However David has now left himself open to the
> accusation that he
> regards intellectual constructs such as organisms, societies and
> metaphysics as somehow
> more real than direct experience, which Pirsig, and Roger, see as
> fundamental.
>
[David Buchanan] Diana's post in general and the first sentence
above both tell me that I've left the wrong impression with the "many
worlds" post. Maybe it was a little too Wilber and not enough Pirsig and I
should have said more about the Intellectual Level itself, which Diana
rightly points out. Since he's comparing two philosophies, Pirsig's quote
was clearly about truth at the fourth level.
As to the next part of paragraph, I've left myself open to what? I'm
not sure what you mean by that, John. We're just not talking about which is
more real. I haven't said or even read anything about that recently. I'm
not even sure I get the question. As I see it, organisms and societies
aren't intellectual constructs at all. They're biological and social
construction - ABOUT WHICH WE can create intellectual constructs. And to ask
if all this is more real than direct experience seems to if static quality
is more real than Dynamic Quality. This just doesn't make sense to me.
Besides, the issue was the "many truths" but you've gone somewhere
else. I mean, I was just saying that the validity of a philosophical
assertion or scientific claim has to be measured in terms of static
intellectual quality. And if direct experience is pre-intellectual then
obviously it is the wrong tool for the job. I wasn't suggesting that direct
experience is unreal or less real that anything else. And I don't wish to
gum up the works, but I think the evolution of ideas, the evolution of
intellectual static patterns just can't happen without direct experience. DQ
is associated with creativity and invention on every level, no?
Pre-patterned, pre-intellectual awareness can't measure static intellect,
but IT IS the source of static quality.
> JB SAID
> (though I personally see logic as an issue in that it may implicitly rule
> out
> aspects of direct experience that appear 'illogical').
>
[David Buchanan] Oh dear. Think about the difference between the
meaning of "irresponsible" and "not responsible". That's like the difference
between irrational and non-rational or illogical and non-logical. Its not
just semantic, there is a meaningful distinction.
> JB SAID
> While Pirsig may be wrong in his four level hierarchy, I suspect he is
> right in seeing a
> hierarchical ordering to the layers of quality we experience, or at the
> bare minimum, he is
> right to see that quality at one level can and does conflict with quality
> at another level. So if
> Roger is correct in pointing to direct experience of dynamic quality as
> fundamental, he needs
> to be able to show how an organism can translate from the richness of
> direct experience a
> hierarchical ordering of quality. (If you won't accept quality varies
> between levels, use value -
> it all amounts to the same thing. Actually I would like to reserve the
> word value for social
> quality, truth for intellectual quality, health for organismic quality.)
>
[David Buchanan] I think the four levels are pretty broad things,
but that doesn't mean Pirsig wrong. I mean, surely the layers of reality are
more complex than anyone can imagine. I think he's just provided a basic
structure for the sake of simplicity. But the last sentence grabbed me most.
It was very much what I tried to say yesterday. Each level is a distinctly
different kind of static quality and so we see different kinds of excellence
and type of excellence has to be measured in those terms. The Good, theTrue
and the Beautiful are social, intellectual, and artistic excellence. Yea,
something like that ...
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 - 16:00:39 BST