Hi Kevin:
> It will be good to clarify this aspect of the conversation as I feel it
> might represent a Great Rift in our respective understanding and
> relationship to MOQ. Happy to clarify:-)
>
> You quoted Pirsig's "tests for truth" as follows:
>
> "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and
> economy of explanation." (8)
>
> Here we have 3 factors in determining Truth. I'm curious which
> "experience" should be used for the above comparison, according to you. Are
> we talking about each individual's "experience" ? Are we referring to the
> collective knowledge of our times as codified in science or philosophy or
> religion or art? Are we talking about observed Data?
Experience as used by Pirsig refers to each individual's experience and
observed data, not the collective knowledge of our times. In the MOQ,
personally "observed data" includes Quality.
> My point (and I believe Matt's if I'm not completely mistaken) is that
> whatever definition you apply to "experience" is going to result in a set
> that is greatly defined within time and space. It cannot be ahistorical. It
> cannot be Universal. Even if we were to compare an Idea for agreement with
> the entirety of recorded human literature it would still be "out of date"
> the instant someone somewhere writes something new.
First, writing is not all there is to reality. At best, it is second-hand
reality from the reality of direct experience. Second, experience
certainly can be and often is universal and unrelated to the past. The hot
stove example in LILA is a case in point.
> The cry for Solidarity is the appeal for the inclusion of experience,
> rather than the exclusion of experience.
Who is crying?
> An idea that is true (as it
> compares to your personal set of experience) isn't very useful if it
> contradicts my personal experience.
Useful to whom? If I think something is true and act on it and it turns out
to be correct, what's not useful about it?
> Rather we engage in conversation to
> find where our experience intersects and use that collective experience
> (that solidarity) to then test our ideas for agreement. Is this really any
> different than the scientific method? Should we really label ideas as
> Truthful if they only agree with an extremely limited range of experiences?
I bring to your attention the story in LILA of the brujo and the Zuni tribe,
repeated in essence throughout the Enlightenment when individuals
dynamically took it upon themselves to seek truth. It's a major theme of
the MOQ, the dynamic individual vs. the degenerate, a Galileo vs. a
bum.
> I reject that notion that Pirsig would suggest a Morality (collection of
> Quality judgements) as being Universal or ahistorical. He clearly intends,
> IMO, that Quality judgements are assessments made as needed. Today's High
> Quality is tomorrow's most rigid Static Pattern.
Then you and I have read two different books. Universal static moral
patterns are absolutely necessary for anything to survive. If quantum
particles go, we all go.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:34 BST