[MD] Intellectual honesty

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi All,

Speaking of intellectual honesty, it seems some here are absolutely sure they 
know an absolute lie when they see it, and woe unto anyone who doubts their 
judgment. Yet, when it comes to truth on which the concept of honesty rests, we 
are we not more or less in agreement with Pirsig's  view?

"Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist 
on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the 
ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things-that 
which corresponds to the "objective" world-and all other constructions are 
unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it 
becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn´t 
seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual 
explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the 
future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something 
better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way he 
examines paintings in an art gallery, not to find which one is the "real" 
painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value." (Lila, 9)

So when a claim of intellectual dishonesty is raised, wouldn't it be more in 
line with the MOQ to frame it as "low quality" instead of calling it an 
absolute lie that cannot be tolerated?

Just asking for a discussion. Thanks.

Platt