[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[MarshaV]

See below...  

On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:45 PM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2010 at 18:16, MarshaV wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> Hi Marsha,
> 
> A statement is incoherent, i.e, nonsensical, if it contradicts itself. For 
> example, the statement "There are not absolutes" contradicts itself 
> because the statement purports to state an absolute truth that it says 
> doesn't exist. Another classic example is "Judge not lest ye be judged" 
> because it tells someone not to do what itself does. The harm in not 
> recognizing self-contradictory statements comes when political leaders 
> justify murdering millions "for the public good," as has happened 
> repeatedly throughout history. Then "truth is relative" becomes a killer.
> 
> Platt      


Greetings

I have stated clearly that I know nothing of the Absolute, and I state nothing
that is absolute.  I stated that static (conventional) truth is relative, relative 
to individual history and context.

      "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)

This statement also seems to indicate that static patterns of value (static
truth, conventional truth) are not equal, but different. and explains why.
I do not understand relative truth to be 'extreme'.  

Marsha
 
 
 
 

 
 
___