Platt:
>If you are speaking of scientific truths, I agree. But since science is
>SOM, I don't follow how you arrive at the conclusion that SOM is to
>blame for absolute truths. Nor do I agree that absolute truths, such as
>the date of your birth, are always bad.
Science isn't just SOM. Science is methodology of experiments and their
interpretation. The current way of interpretting scientific data is SOM,
there's a big difference. Science still applies in the MOQ, make no mistake,
the interpretation of the data is through the MOQ, that's all. Even though
many people seem to not appreciate science here, it is built on experiments,
experiences common to all people, reproducable by anybody. The core of
science is still just interpreting experiences, that's why scientists still
get a doctorate in philosophy (PH.D.).
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
Sent: January 25, 2002 9:33 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD truth and reality
Hi Mary,
It's great to see you back. I've missed you. Of course, I miss your father
very much, too. We had some great discussions.
You wrote:
> Once you believe something to be an absolute truth your mind is forever
> closed on that subject. That is a major drawback of SOM. If, instead,
you
> accept Pirsig's stance that "...the MOQ does not insist on a single
> exclusive truth ..." then you are still free to judge the value of
> something based on it's intellectual level of quality (that is, whether it
> passes Pirsig's tests of truth). Seems to me the entire concept of Truth
> is an intellectual level static value. The truths we construct today may
> become the falsehoods of tomorrow if that truth is superceded by a new one
> found to posess greater intellectual value.
If you are speaking of scientific truths, I agree. But since science is
SOM, I don't follow how you arrive at the conclusion that SOM is to
blame for absolute truths. Nor do I agree that absolute truths, such as
the date of your birth, are always bad.
> I think Pirsig demotes Truth from its pinnacle in the SOM pantheon.
> Dynamic Quality does not equal Truth. Isn't that what he's saying here?
> "... 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..."
Do you consider Quality or excellence as ultimate reality an absolute? It
appears that you (and Pirsig) do.
> The whole idea of Absolute Truths is a dangerous one. SOM raises Truth to
> the level of Quality, while the MOQ demotes Truth to the level of the
> intellect.
I share your fear of ideologues, bigots, dogmatists and bullies of all
kinds who want to impose their absolute beliefs on others by force. In
fact, I have an abiding suspicion of anyone who proposes some new
program backed by the law ostensibly for "the public good" or the "good
of humanity." (The Kyoto Treaty comes to mind.) But when the mother
of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, says, "My love for him is
unconditional and absolute," I see not only an absolute truth, but a
good one. . .like your birthday!
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
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