[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[MarshaV]

On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2010 at 11:46, MarshaV wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> 
>>>> This didn't answer the question, but did put words in my mouth
>>>> that were not said.
>> 
>>>> Sjteve:
>>>> I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I was referring to this:
>>> 
>>> Marsha previously:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> You made no reference to my post of Jan 30, 2010, at 1:43 AM.; how was I
>> to guess?  I do not agree that the charge of relativism should be considered
>> an extreme.   One can assume it is an extreme, of course, but on what basis?  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha  
> 
> Hi Marsha,
> 
> It's extremely incoherent to assert as true that truth is relative. But, in 
> this day and age, incoherence is often celebrated, as pronouncements  
> by progressives (we can spend our way to prosperity) and "modern" art   
> paintings attest.
> 


Hi Platt,

I said static (conventional) truth is relative.  Is knowledge anything other that static patterns of value?  Absolute truth is beyond my comprehension. -   Incoherent to whom, and how is it determined?   Would it be incoherent to Aristotle  (the Law of Non-Contradiciton, or the Law of the Excluded Middle)?  Where is it stated as a incoherence within the MoQ?


Marsha
 
 
 
 






 
___