From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 19:17:07 GMT
Hi
Maybe we can shift this argument about truth to
one about epistemology. Shall we discuss some specific
things we wish to say are true? What do we mean by them being true?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:33 AM
Subject: RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> Andy and all truth seekers.
>
> Andy said:
> I still don't understand the source of your irritation with Matt and
Rorty.
> I think you believe you have made some very specific objections that Matt
is
> avoiding, but I think he has honestly addressed each and every one of
them.
> Perhaps, it is becuase your points are do not come accross as clear to us
as
> they are to you.
>
> dmb says:
> I'd be happy to try and make my points clear. As I've said, answering
> questions and addressing objections is what its all about and I'm glad to
do
> it. But apparently I'm not worthy to speak of Rorty and so there aren't
many
> questions asked about my thoughts, just dismissive insults and such.
>
> Andy said:
> I still don't know how this helps us recognize truth. Or how to identify
a
> dangerous idea. Or how to reveal the "right" morals to live by. You have
> said truth and morality are as real as trees and rocks, but you don't
offer
> us any way to percieve this reality. I don't see how Pirsig has given us
> another option. Do you see why I am confused? If truth is not what we
can
> agree upon and if it is not absolute then what is it? How do we know it?
> Understand, that I am open to the possiblity of another way to identify
> truth, if you can present it. I just have not grasped onto what it is you
> might be saying.
>
> dmb says;
> I don't think I was trying to answer all those big questions. We could get
> at them. They're good ones. But my point here is much more narrow than
that.
> My point is simply that Pirsig and Rorty have different theories of truth.
> (It seems they are hostile to each other in other fundamental ways too.)
I'm
> just saying that Pirsig's theory of truth doesn't seek or lay claim to the
> absolute Truth. Nor does it assert that truth is merely a property of true
> statements. The MOQ's assertion that truth is simply a high quality
> intellectual explanation is far less grandiose than absolute Truth, but it
> is far more "solid" and real than a property. For Pirsig, our truths about
> reality are more than a collective hunch too. Its the third choice you
asked
> for. The MOQ can't construe truth as a propery of statements because
> intersubjective agreement is still just subjectivity. In ZAMM he's trying
to
> get us to see technology, like his motorcycle, as ideas forged in steel.
> He's asserting that the Buddha can be found in the gears of his machine
just
> as well as in the petals of a lotus flower. The MOQ makes the idea part of
a
> larger system where ideas are a product of creation in and of themselves,
> not an attribute of some other thing. In this picture, we don't agree
about
> the truth of ideas, we ARE ideas - among other things. There are propably
> lots of better ways to get at the differences, but I'd imagine you see
what
> I'm getting at by now. Let me know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> 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 Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 19:33:19 GMT