Re: The non-ontology of Truth (was Re: MD criticisms of DQ)

From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Sun Feb 18 2001 - 07:13:13 GMT


Hi elephant and all,

Please forgive me for pursuing this still further - I consider it to be a
central tenet of the MoQ, so I don't want to let it go.

> JONATHAN:
> > . . . for everything I
> > perceive to exist, I can make an infinity of "true" statements and an even
> > larger (:-) infinity of "untrue" statements. I do not consider these
> > statements to be the REASON an object exists (i.e. ontology). They are a
> > CONSQUENCE of existence.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> I follow your point, but the confusion is in the thought that we perceive
> things to exist and then come along and make statements afterwards. . .

Elephant, this is the whole issue of "preintellectual" vs. "intellectuallized"
awareness.
Pirsig brings up this subject repeatedly, nost noteably in the metaphor of the
train and the cutting edge of reality (ZAMM).

[ELEPHANT cont.]
> *what* we perceive is the upshot of the statements we associate with our
> perception, and before the throwing of that linguistic net there is no
> *what*, but just the aesthetic continuum.
This view does not fit with the way Pirsig describes the experience of sitting
on a hot stove.

> For this reason, your claim that
> we can make an infinity of true and untrue statements about *what* we
> perceive is infact false. Consequently the conclusion you draw, that what
> exists is unconnected to what statements we think of as true, is also false.

Elephant, please explain - I don't see the logic in your statement. I claim
that once I perceive something to exist, I can then continue making true and
untrue statements about that thing AD INFINITUM.

> Existence, alteast with SQ entities like subjects and objects, is a
> consequence of our intellectualising in pursuit of quality.
This is only a true if the division between subject and object is considered a
PREREQUISITE for existence. That would seem to fit the definition of SOM. I
believe that Pirsig has rejected this starting point repeatedly, consistently
and unambigously in both of his novels.

Have a nice week all,

Jonathan

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 - 16:01:06 BST