From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 20:17:40 GMT
Well what does Pirsig say about truth because this quote is about quality?
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: MD Two theories of truth
> David M said:
> 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. ..The status of truth has to
be
> similar to the status of Newton's laws of physics as discussed in ZMM.
>
> dmb says:
> Again, you're not making an argument, just a series of unsupported and
vague
> assertions. And I think its a huge mistake to extract a theory of truth
from
> ZAMM, where intellectual static patterns had not yet been coined. Since
> Pirsig asserts that truth is a high quality intellectual description, we
> can't rightly turn to ZAMM for that theory.
>
> David M continued:
> 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.
>
> dmb says:
> Always talking about stuff that Rorty does not write?! How can you say
that?
> How many more times must I post the quote where Rorty decribes his theory
of
> truth, the one we are presently discussing? You're being very unfair here.
> And the rest is so vague that it means nothing at all to me. Truth is a
> cultural phenomenon. OK. So what? By this standard we'd hardly be able to
> distinquish any two theories of truth. I mean, to say that both the Arabs
> and the Jews agree that the sky is blue is not to say they have no
> disagreements. Look again at these contrasting 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."
>
> Richard Rorty:
> "For pragmatists, "truth" is just the name of a property which all true
> statements share. ...Pragmatists doubt that there is much to be said for
> this common feature. They doubt this for the same reason they doubt that
> there is much to be said about the common feature shared by praiseworthy
> actions... They see certain acts as good ones to perform, under the
> circumstances, but doubt that there is anything general and useful to say
> about what makes them all good."
>
> For Rorty, the good and the true are adjectives, modifiers, while Pirsig
> treats them as nouns. See?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 20:46:13 GMT