[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[MarshaV]

> 
> Marsh said to Steve and dmb:
> Would you gentlemen explain how if context and history are key factors in determining truth (conventional), why can it not be said that truth (conventional) is relative to context and history?  It seems obvious: truth (conventional) is relative.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> There are lots of different kinds of relativism and the word "relative" has several related meanings too. The debate between Steve and I have been engaged in has mostly been about what would probably be called "truth relativism" and "cultural relativism". Since you're question involves contextualism and historicism, you seem to be asking about cultural relativism. But the use of "relative" in the phrase "truth is relative to context and history" is really just a synonym for "related". Anyway, because of your question, it occurred to me that there might be a very important but unspoken difference between the way Steve and I understand how context and history is related to truth and then what that means for the notion of truth.
> 
> I'm going to guess that Steve (and/or Rorty) thinks that context and history aren't just important factors in determining truth but are more like the only factors. This is true for some relativists. As they see, context and history dictate what we can think and believe in an almost deterministic, cause and effect sort of way. Others are softer about this contextualism and think the historical situation is certainly something we need to take account of and factor into our deliberations but they don't believe we are hopelessly trapped in our perspectives in a way that prevents us from making valid judgments about and comparisons to other times and cultures. I think this latter position is pretty obviously true just because there are so many people who are multi-lingual, multi-cultural and can earn a good living as a translator. I mean, as a practical matter people transcend their inherited context in all kinds of ways besides literally functioning in another context. Education 
> and personal growth is practically a deliberate and predictable means of expanding one's context and one of the most important features of human intelligence is the ability to put yourself in the other gal's shoes. Nobody could successfully lie without that skill and we all know human civilization was built on lies. That's why I believe in truth. The world couldn't function normally without it. If you say, "that's not true" then all I can say is, "see, I told you so". ;-)
> 

Marsha:

No,  I wrote 'truth is relative', and that is what I meant.  'Relative' as in dependent on, and 'truth', with a 
small (t), as in conventional truth or static truth.  Truth is relative to, or dependent on, context and history.  
At the very least truth (conventional or static) is relative to (dependent on) individual context and history.  

"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality
is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are
different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of
life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his
final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value
judgments but not complete uniformity."   
     (RMP, SODV)