In a message dated 11/23/99 6:55:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Jackbrn1o@aol.com writes:
> I must disagree with your (PHolden) assertion that truth is the highest
form of
> intellectual quality.
Well, there is a lot of argument here, but so far the best MOQ explanation
for the intellectual level is Bodvar's SOLogic as the Intellectual Level
Theory where SO thinking is the intellectual level (which I personally think
is still a bit incomplete unless Quality is part of a fifth level). As a
result I would place Truth (not just something that is true see below) firmly
in the intellectual level as it subscribes to the idea that there are
objective laws that exist separate from subjects. Please look in archives
under SOLAQI or ask Bodvar for details.
"Truth is the highest form of the Good." I don't remember exactly where this
is from, but it was Socrates/Plato talking. But it wasn't to say that Truth
was the Good (Quality). It was to divide the Good such that there would be
an intellectual pecking order where Truth would be the top. It was to cut
out the Sophists' as the top of the ladder. And with good rhetoric, Socrates
and his disciples won. This is all in ZAMM, but the basic idea was the
Sophists' Quality was demoted by an association to subjectivism (Rhetoric)
and Truth was the promoted to a position somewhat like the Pope; Truth became
accepted as the highest direct link to the Good.
Obviously, I don't equate this Truth to Quality.
JC states:
>. Truth is the highest expression of the good at the intellectual level,
>just as celebrity is the highest expression of good on the social level and
>sex is the highest expression of good at the biological level.
>This might seem to suggest that Truth=Quality, because after all, the only
>tool we have in our search for understanding any of this, is our intellect.
>Thus the highest Quality we can ever percieve is Truth. Truth=Quality.
xcto:
Actually much of Lila speaks a lot about something that comes before Truth -
Direct Experience! Think about it...
Jackbrn:
> Truth is dynamic quality.
You lost me here. How did you come to this conclusion?
>They are synonymous. To
> try and fit truth into intellectual quality is backwards. Intellectual
> quality is one way of expressing dynamic quality.
> Just like art or music or
> the gods of ancient Rome were different expressions of that same dynamic
> quality.
I'm thinking about arete and rt here. Again it is what is the Best, it is
excellence that you are talking about. Truth would be 'the best of the
intellectual level.'
(Just as an aside, to propose that celebrity is the highest form
> of social quality is ludicrous. Read what Buddhism has to say about
celebrity -
> that it's "hell on earth." The highest form of social quality is the most
> dynamic; i.e., the one that most promotes social/human development. By
your
> statement Tom Cruise would have more social quality than someone like
Mother
> Theresa because he's a "bigger celebrity.")
xcto: I believe the semantics is interfering with your argument. Mother
Teresa's celebrity is much bigger than Tom Cruise's. It's much more about
social influence, and who has more. In the MOQ there are also different
arenas where social influence takes place, entertainment, politics, religion,
economies, etc. They share some of the same things but not others. See
archives about POWER.
> Your conclusion that truth is static misses the point of MOQ all together.
> MOQ was developed because Pirsig found that "Quality" runs ahead of any
> explanation, or static patterns, when it's first experienced. His example
> being the feeling you get when you hear a new song that you like - you
know
> you like it but you can't necessarily explain why. It just makes you feel
> something that's beyond rational explanation. But just because it's
beyond
> explanation doesn't make it any less true, or have less quality for you.
> In short, in MOQ truth exists on all static levels, and on into the
dynamic.
>
> Indeed, Pirsig was sent on his quest for MOQ because he saw that there is
a
> truth beyond explanation - Dynamic Quality.
Ah you are getting it here, Jack. But your use of truth here is not the use
of TRUTH that you used before. The philosopher's Truth has some important
connections that are a bit different than straight logic of A is true, B is
false. I hope this clears up this quandry a bit.
Please give me any comments and clear up my mistakes
xcto
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST