RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 07:29:28 GMT

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ"

    Paul and All.

    30 Jan. you wrote:

    > Bo said:
    > OK, we may be reconciled here if you accept Truth in the sense of (ZMM
    > "Truth. Knowledge. That which is independent of what anyone thinks of
    > it. The ideal that Socrates died for. The ideal that Greece alone
    > possesses for the first time in the history of the world."
     
    > Paul:
    > That was their definition of truth after it was separated from belief
    > and placed higher than the good.

    Wrong, this is P. of ZMM's definition of what took place at that
    time. Socrates, Plato or Aristotle did not know any subject/object
    distinction. Socrates definition was TRUTH ...not separate from
    belief, but different from OPINION (that the Sophists kept
    manipulating) but note that Pirsig feels the need for strengthening
    it by his: "That what is independent of ...etc." which is what we
    define as OBJECTIVE. Plato's permanence were IDEAS, only
    with Aristotle did something resembling S/O (form/substance)
    emerge.

    The kernel of all this is: It's the MOQ's interpretation of the past
    we talk about, and my assertion is that everything Pirsig writes
    points to a S/O definition of intellect. How Socrates, Plato and
    Aristotle defined their own struggle is almost irrelevant, Socrates
    did NOT (in his own words) place truth higher than good. Truth
    was his highest good. It's in a MOQ context that the old good
    (aretê) becomes REALITY ITSELF and the new search for a truth
    (permanence) beyond aretê becomes a travesty. Get this clear or
    your interpretation goes haywire.

    > Bo said:
    > Still I wonder why the "objective" term so inedible?
     
    > Paul:
    > Because it implies the possibility of correspondence to
    > objects-in-themselves. That is one view of truth but there are others.

    Will you never understand? As a static level 'subjective' and
    'objective' lose their metaphysical "in-themselves" quality they
    had in SOM and becomes the static value of such a distinction.
    "Modernity" depends upon the intellectual level NOT becoming a
    mind capable of harboring every possible idea.

    > Bo said:
    > "Truth" is often reinforced by putting an "objective" in front of it
    > to indicate something more than just plain truthfulness.
     
    > Paul:
    > Well, you need to be precise about the way you are using "objective."
    > When it is used to describe good journalism, for instance, it has more
    > in common with "impartial."

    Yes impartial, that's it. In ZMM Pirsig writes (in describing the
    emergence of SOM): "...But now as the result of the growing
    IMPARTIALITY of the Greeks to the world around them ...etc."

    > It is often linked in with a scientific
    > approach of being careful when making inferences. Epistemologically,
    > it assumes the pre-existence of facts that can be known or unknown.

    Yes, and this is the way the the S/O distinction must be
    understood in the MOQ; the value of an objective reality versus
    opinion. This is something else than Joseph Goebbels: "Truth is
    what is repeated often enough".
     
    > Bo said:
    > Knowledge is "objective", and "..independent of what anyone thinks of
    > it".

    > Paul:
    > That's your definition of knowledge, inherited from the Greeks.

    No, this definition and conclusion are Pirsig's interpretation of
    what took place in Greece.

    > In
    > Plato's dialogues, you often find his characters using the "analytic"
    > truths of mathematics to demonstrate this "objectivity" but even those
    > have been shown to be one from a possible many, as described by Pirsig
    > in the section on Poincare in ZMM.

    Yes, Plato's permanent (objective) entities: Ideas (numbers,
    mathematical and geometrical truths included) had no apparent
    subjective counterpart EXCEPT the reality they replaced. About
    "one from a possible many" (many what?) you have to spoon-
    feed me.

    More than enough.

    Bo

    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 Feb 03 2004 - 07:31:05 GMT