From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 14:57:31 GMT
DMB (I think says):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.
Pirsig's answer says Anthony is:
The answer provided by Pirsig is that the atoms of the glass can be said,
metaphysically, to value sticking together.
Yes, value is the key. DQ is free, the only cause of SQ is DQ valuing its
existence, it allows it to repeat.
Rorty's theory of truth is closely linked, what is true for us will depend
on what we value.
Don't see why a MOQer would have a problem with this.
Value holds everything together it seems, not so flimsy.
Truth depends on language and value. Rorty and Pirsig agree.
What we value has all kinds of sources see Charles Taylor's
Sources of the Self. The status of truth has to be similar
to the status of Newton's laws of physics as discussed in ZMM.
The 'truth' concept is a cultural phenomenon, and subject to
the quality of cultural phenomenon as Rorty discusses. Can't
see why a Pirsig reader would lose any sleep over what Rorty says.
When people here start to complain about Rorty they are always talking
about stuff that Rorty does not write about or arguing with a position
he does not take.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:25 AM
Subject: MD Two theories of truth
> 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
>
>
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 - 15:01:25 GMT