At 9:49 AM -0500 11/23/99, Jackbrn1o@aol.com wrote:
>I must disagree with your assertion that truth is the highest form of
>intellectual quality. Truth is dynamic quality. They are synonymous.
Well originally, this was an attempt to wrestle with a quote from RMP
himself which directly attacks the assertion that Truth=Quality.
P99-100 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 are
permitted only one construction of things, that which corresponds to the
objective world. 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 (MANY TRUTHS)
(thanks pclark - 11/15/99)
It was in that context that I was trying to wrestle my understanding of
Truth and Quality into proper MOQ shape. Because I offered the proof
earlier that since we always perceive any Truth by its Quality and Quality
whenever something is True, then the two terms are actually a tautology.
Truth is what leads you to Quality and Quality is how you know Truth.
The MANY TRUTHS quote above seems to contradict my assertion. I'm still
thinking about it.
It seems to me that what Pirsig is talking about on P99-100, are the
relative truths portrayed as highest knowledge in science through the
intellectual evolution of scientific understanding of the universe. And
what he is fighting here, is the tendency of static scientific-mindedness
to latch on too firmly to its beloved facts and patterns of "known".
However, what I'd like to discuss is the concept of Truth in a larger
sense. The idea of rightness that takes hold of a scientist who recognizes
the "new truth" that is better than the "old truth" because of his overall
sense of TRUTH. This TRUTH. This is what I'm talking about as identical
to Quality. The sense of rightness you feel. Sure, it also follows
definite patterns of consistency. Static patterns that conform to logical
laws. It harmonizes and resonates with other established patterns beyond
the intellectual. That's why scientist love labratory results - the
subconscious desire for this unity on all levels - social, intellectual,
biological and non-organic. That experience of Quality is actually what
they are seeking when they say they are searching for Truth.
If any idea has no Truth, then it also has no Quality.
But it also makes sense to me that the concept of TRUTH operates only on
the intellectual level. Truth is a statement of how much Quality an
intellectual pattern of explanation possesses. Does that work squad?
>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.
When we talk about "intellect" we are talking about all of human thought
and expression. Art has to do with intellectual patterns also. Music is
highly intellectual and used to be taught as a branch of mathmatics. The
fact that biologically we are swayed by music - that even plants register a
reaction to music, is an interesting idea to the intellect. Art and Music
and the gods of ancient Rome are all expressions of societys and intellects
evolving toward Quality on the appropriate levels.
Dynamic can't be encapsulated and defined. In the moment that you start
talking about it, it dissapears. The Tao that can be known is not the Tao.
In a historical setting, Dynamic quality is the stuff that came in and
messed up what civilization had going. The Vandals that came in and
disrupted static Roman patterns of society were the expression of DQ in
that age. It usually is percieved as painful to any static pattern to be
disrupted. This holds truest for the intellectual and social and
biological patterns of values I'd guess, since I can't honestly ascribe
"pain" to non-organic reality. People like to get comfortable in a narrow
world view and not be challenged on the issue. Societies dislike the
disruptions of war and calamity that strikes at the heart of their
carefully constructed pyramid schemes.
But without the force of Dynamic Quality to upset and change things that
need to be changed, we'd all be lost in a narrow cave with all the light
blocked by the works of our own hands.
Dynamic Quality is more than a feeling.
>(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.
As I understand the model, it goes like this:
Society is evolving toward Quality all the time, incorporating both static
and dynamic elements appropriate to its (the social level) Dynamic Quality
does not ALWAYS produce what is best. On the biological level, most
mutations are disabling to the organism rather than the reverse. On the
social level, much of the chaos of the dynamic 60's led to social decay.
However, without the operation of DQ, there would be no possibility of
growth and adaptation. But don't disparage the latching mechanism which
grabs on to what is seen to work, what is seen to be good. Without static
quality, life wouldn't exist.
I looked at this question more thoroughly in another post that I'm sending
with this.
>By your
>statement Tom Cruise would have more social quality than someone like Mother
>Theresa because he's a "bigger celebrity.")
>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.
I don't quite follow what you mean. It appears to me that you're trying to
fit Quality into the prevailing Subject/Object metaphysics. I know it's
difficult to communicate, but Quality isn't any definable "thing" that
exists apart from our perceptions, nor is it something that was laying
around in the Universe just waiting to be found by RMP.
>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.
Do you think there is anything that is beyond rational explanation? Can
you describe it for me?
>But just because it's beyond
>explanation doesn't make it any less true, or have less quality for you.
You're making it sound subjective. Let's not get gored by the horn.
>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.
"Sent on his quest"? Who was the sender? Sorry, but that just sounds
ridiculous to me. And please explain how truth operates on the level of
non-organic patterns of value. Or even on social or biological patterns
for that matter.
Truth belongs exclusively to the realm of abstract reasoning we call
intellect.
jc
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