Hi Rick:
> RICK:
> Notice, Platt, that while those 'Pirsig snippets' you cite ADDRESS 'truth',
> they don't DEFINE 'truth'. You're 100% correct when you say that without
> mutual understanding of what truth means discussion becomes futile. As
> this forum is devoted to the works of Robert Pirsig, I suggest we use his
> understanding of what the truth is. Would you like to know what Pirsig's
> understanding of 'truth' is...
PLATT:
Already I suspect we've hit the land of futile discussions when you
describe the snippets as addressing, not defining truth. To my mind
that's a distinction without a difference because I don't know what you
mean by "address truth." I've never heard such an expression. You
address a letter or an audience or a passing yacht, but not truth. When
Pirsig says, "The tests of truth are . . ." I take it to be his DEFINITION of
that word.
> PIRSIG (LILA p.114):
> "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.' 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 on intellectual reality 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 current patterns of value."
>
> RICK:
> I think you will find Pirsig's explanation of 'truth' 100% consistent with
> my notion of provisional truths based on systematic interpretations of
> fact.... Group hugs indeed.
> What do you think???
PLATT:
Right now I can't say ay or nay because of Pirsig's emphasis on
"intellectual explanation" and "intellectual reality." Since he has already
defined truth as an intellectual pattern of values of logical consistency,
agreement with experience and economy of explanation," a proposition
or a purported piece of evidence WITHOUT THOSE
CHARACTERISTICS wouldn't qualify to be included in his "set of
truths."
But if your reference to "systematic" means "logical," and "fact" means
"agreement with experience," then indeed we are of like mind and
there can be group hugs all around.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:47 BST