MD Two theories of truth

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 02:25:38 GMT

  • Next message: David Harding: "Re: MD The MOQ makes inroads"

    Anthony, Andy and all:

    Hey Doc, I'd be interested in a hard copy of your thesis too...

    McWatt quotes Pirsig:
    "To reify means to regard an abstraction as if it had a concrete or material
    existence. You don't lose the value of quality by treating it as if it had
    a concrete or material existence. You lose the value of quality by treating
    it as if it had only an abstract existence. That is the fundamental point
    of the MOQ. Beasley's unease is caused by an inability to understand the
    basic assertion of the MOQ. He assumes it is in error because it
    contradicts his prejudices but never explains why his prejudice is
    superior."
     
    Andy asked Dr. McWatt:
    Well, this may be so, but isn't Pirsig on shaky ground here. You don't give
    this much more discussion, but seem content to dismiss Beasley with Pirsigs
    brush-off. WHat does Pirsig mean when he says, "You don't lose the value of
    quality by treating it as if it had a concrete or material existence."
    Quality has a concrete and a material existence? And this is a "fundamental
    point of the MOQ?" Uh-oh, I have just missed something here. What is it?
    I don't know what quality is, but I don't think it has a "concrete or
    material existence." If it does, could someone help me see why this is so.

    dmb chimes in:
    As real as rocks and trees. This is what I've been trying to get at in the
    other thread, where I tried to show those two theories of truth as
    incompatible. In these terms, Rorty treats truth as if it only had an
    abstract existence, as a property of sentences, as a matter of
    intersubjective agreement. Pirsig, on the other hand, treats truth as if it
    were as real as...

    Pirsig:
    "They have their genesis in society the same way that society has its
    genesis in biology. WIthout biology there is no society. Without society
    there is no intellect since there would be no one to talk to anyone else and
    thus no language to speak and thus nothing to contain the ideas."
      
    Andy replied:
    From here it seems there is just a small step to saying truth is a propety
    of language. I am not disagreeing here I am just noting for others the
    "linguistic turn" that Pirsig has taken. To DMB, in particular, it seems
    Pirsig notes the imporatance of language to truth.

    dmb says:
    I think you've misread here. I don't see the small step to Rorty's theory of
    truth and I don't think he's talking about the "linguistic turn" here. (I'd
    bet a buck that you got this idea from Matt.) It seems pretty clear to me
    that he is talking about the way in which ideas (intellectual static
    quality) are situated in that matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship. He's
    pointing out the necessary relationship between the social level, where
    language was born, and the realm of ideas, where we use this inheritance to
    paint our ideas. In the same way that biology preceeds society, language
    preceeds intellect. He makes the same point in several different ways. Maybe
    you rememeber where he corrects Descartes. He re-phrases the famous quote
    as, "French culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am". (Or
    something like that) Also this evolutionary relationship is built right into
    his hierarchy, the moral codes, the four levels and all that.

    Its at this point that I realized I was hijacking Anthony's thread and so
    re-named the subject line. It had been titled "NEW PIRSIG WEBSITE". And now
    I feel somewhat liberated and hope you'll indulge me further...

    It seems that there are lots of specific differences between Rorty and
    Pirsig, and I've pressed the distinction between their two theories of truth
    because is one of those specific cases that seems to be central to their
    overall differences. In the broader view they seem just as incompatable.
    While Rorty's intersubjective agreement might bare some similarities to what
    Pirsig describes as sanity, that is about as far as it goes. Rorty's truth
    is such a flimsy and arbitrary kind of truth, but Pirsig insists there is
    something that holds it all together, just as there is something that holds
    the glass together and lets you drink. There is a rightness that holds
    "sanity" together, and its the same force that holds everything together. He
    even asserts that this is the oldest idea known to man. (Mythology expressed
    it before there were such things as ideas.)

    He paints a picture of reality such that excellence in human life is
    achieved when one is somehow in harmony with this cosmic rightness. The
    static patterns are variously mastered, extinquished, or otherwise put to
    sleep. When one is no longer fighting against or otherwise tangled up in
    these static forms, genuine freedom and creativity may be achived. In
    religious circles this might be refered to as "getting right with God" or
    "obedience to God's will". Its what Campbell calls "following your bliss".
    There's no good reason to avoid this spiritual aspect of Pirsig's work. He's
    always been looking for the Buddha in one way or another and so the MOQ is
    much, MUCH more comparable to Eastern Philosophy and mysticism than it is to
    anything like neo-pragmatism. The latter has analogies and contingencies all
    the way down, the MOQ has the unfolding of an evolutionary universe in which
    all static forms are tranparent to the divine, are shown to be children of
    the creator. A neo-pragmatic atheist and physicalist is just naturally gonna
    be lightyears away from all that. I don't pretend to speak for Anthony and
    I'm not even sure he'd agree with this, but I think its no accident that he
    opened with this theme. Its at the heart and soul....

    Anthony McWatt quotes THE HYMS OF THE RG-VEDA in Indian Philosophy:
    "Rta (i.e. Quality) denotes the order of the world. Everything that is
    ordered in the universe has Rta for its principle. It corresponds to the
    universals of Plato. The world of experience is a shadow or reflection of
    the Rta, the permanent reality which remains unchanged in all the welter of
    mutation. The universal is prior to the particular, and so the Vedic seer
    thinks that Rta exists before the maifestation of all phenomena. The
    shifting series of the world are the varying expression of the constant Rta.
    So Rta is called the father of all..."

    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 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 02:28:33 GMT