Diana writes:Everyone
Pirsig's many sets of truth idea, which he expounds in chapter 8
is about profound truths about the nature of reality - metaphysical
truths, not conflicting values. Not that there isn't such a thing
as conflicting values, but that isn't what he's getting at when
he talks about truths.
David's example about infidelity is something that anyone of
any culture can understand. It doesn't take a new metaphysical
paradigm to explain it and the SOM doesn't deny conflicting
values, even if it doesn't actually call them that. And the fact
that Clinton won't be president next year doesn't need a new
paradigm either. The SOM doesn't deny that things change
over time.
Pirsig introduces the idea specifically to show that the MOQ
doesn't invalidate the SOM. He talks about different "constructions
of things", different "sets of truths", different "intellectual
realities" and different "intellectual patterns for interpreting
reality". He doesn't actually use the phrase "many truths" that
I can find (pls point it out if he does). He offers the SOM as
one example of a set of truths and the MOQ as another example.
And he implies that there may be other sets which may also be
valid.
The kind of truth that he's talking about is metaphysical truths
about what things exist, what is their nature and relationship.
Is time an arrow or a cycle? Are things divided or separate?
Do we have free will or not? Is it a truth that all things should
realize their true nature? And it's also the truth that we should
transcend our true nature? Yes, that's a contradiction but both
are truths in a real and profound sense.
I think Platt's "Catches" if they're still around, might have
some more examples of paradoxical truths.
Diana
Diana,
Not sure but I may have been the one who introduced the many truths idea.
As you are probably aware, my view of the MOQ is different from the
mainstream view of the squad. My view of Quality is that it is the driving
force that is responsible for the range of possibilities that proliferate as
the universe ages. Resulting from this is are the expressions of Value,
Truth, and Morality. If I take this approach it clears up all of the
problems the rest of the squad finds with the MOQ.
The problem I have with this approach is that I can substitute the second
law of thermodynamics in place of Quality. If this is done then the MOQ
becomes a straightforward operation of the second law with the exception of
the changes that Pirsig made with regard to causation, SOM, Morality, Truth,
and Value. It all works really well.
With regard to your interpretation of Truth, I don't read this passage the
same way at all.
Pirsig says:
But if Quality or excellence (Do I have a problem here?) 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".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 out which one is the "real" painting,
but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of
intellectual realities in existence and we can perceive some to have more
quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our
history and our current patterns of values.
Clark writes:
As I interpret Pirsig he is talking about individuals in the whole
passage. "Then ONE doesn't seek the absolute"
As I see it, each and every one of us us bombarded with all of the inputs
from the rest of the universe plus those intellectual realities upon which
some previous agreement has been reached.
We, each of us, receive all of these inputs from which we must severally
extract our own individual "Truths". It is at this point that we interact
with others to reach a new level of "intellectual reality"
The sentient world is a world of many individual truths seeking to advance
our common level of intellectual reality.
I can see no intellectual goal toward which the world is headed. "WE
SIMPLY ENJOY AND KEEP THOSE INTELLECTUAL REALITIES WHICH ARE OF VALUE". Ken
Clark
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