>DAVID LIND:
>Am I alone in seeing "Pirsigs "many truths"
>as "what is true now (given one's available experience)is not
>necessarily ALWAYS or FOREVER true?" i.e. - that the world was flat
>WAS true for those at that time (for all practical purposes - they
>lived life as if it were true, so therefore for them it was true) and
>now we have the truth that the world is round - based upon information
>we possess that those who believed it was flat did not.
I guess I probably agree with the spirt of this statement, but quibble with
the terminology. I think using the term "truth" in so many different
levels causes an awkwardness. I'd like to introduce the term "belief". A
philosophy is supposed to clarify awkwardness. Let's do some philosophy on
Truth and Quality.
Is it "True" that the world is flat? No.
Did primitive people believe this? Well maybe not. Translating another's
cosmology into one's own and then finding all the fallacies is a dangerous
enterprise. In Jacob Needleman's, _A Sense of the Cosmos_, there is
persuasive rhetoric that our understand of medieval cosmology is mistaken.
The "flat earth" was not a literally held "truth". It was rather part of a
larger teaching, symbolic of an intersection of the plane of existence with
an infinitely expanding universe... but I digress.)
For the sake of this argument, we'll adopt the commonly held view that a
flat earth "belief" was once the dominant paradigm.
Was this belief true? No. People have been seen the world. We've seen
its shape and how it hangs in place. We know that it was never a flat
plate sitting on a tortoise's back. If something is found to be untrue
today, then it was always untrue. Despite the belief system of any
particular paradigm. "Many truths" is just an awkward term for "belief".
IMHO.
Extrapolation of patterns throughout intellectual evolution plainly speak
to the point that what we believe now, will be discovered untrue in later
developments of intellect. Thus the necessity for being precise in using
"belief" for that which we hold as "true" and TRUTH as that yardstick by
which we measure our evolving "beliefs".
The question I posed to this squad was, since Truth is the highest standard
for intellect, and intellect is our highest tool in developing a cosmology
of Quality, then does not Truth = Quality?
Here is my conclusion of the discusssion so far.
A knower's concept of Truth is relative to the defined cosmology of the
knower.
Thus with the key "concept of" being translated into "belief", the "knower"
becomes integral. That right there is the the difference between "truth"
and "belief". If you say there are many truths because there are many
knowers, you will have twisted the meaning of "truth" to do so. There are
many beliefs, but one standard, Truth, by which to judge a belief.
We have only one concept by which we measure resonating harmony of any
assertion. Truth. You can formulate the seemingly highest quality
metaphysics ever dreamt of, but if it ain't got truth, Sorry. It's garbage.
Truth is always intrinsic to "high intellectual quality". I believe
there's a reason for this and that reason is best explained by the MoQ.
In the SOM world, intellectual understanding of the universe grew through
the dynamic interaction of the "facts" of the cosmos conflicting with the
static models that were held to be true. When these "truths" were exposed
as "wrong beliefs" by the searcher, a very high quality feeling ensued. In
fact, I'd say it was in pursuit of this high quality feeling that caused
the searcher to dig for the truth in the first place. When he discoverd
the "actual truth" of the matter, he was experiencing the evolutionary
thrill that comes with advancement, with leaving the old paradigm behind
and entering a new understanding of the cosmos. This feeling of being born
again, is what the MoQ understands as the experience of DQ. Accordingly,
the MoQ asserts that what was really being sought was DQ. The
scientist/searcher says he he was seeking Truth. The two systems harmonize
when you understand the concept of Truth to be the highest level of static
intellectual value. The first expression of Dynamic Quality as it descends
into the intellectual sphere. The ongoing intellectual evolutionary pull
which drives cosmologists to keep seeking higher quality metaphysical
models. That which is True.
Ultimately, Truth is the highest standard for any static intellectual
pattern, while remaining subordinate to Quality. For Truth itself is only
a valid concept because of the HQ that confirms and generates any
perception of it (Truth). Truth is definable. Ultimate Quality is not.
I guess my question is answered. Truth does not = Quality.
Any quibbles with the assertion that Truth is the highest expression of
static intellectual quality and the operation of Dynamic Quality upon
intellectual patterns of value?
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 - 16:03:15 BST