[MD] Intellectual honesty

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM,  <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Dan:

Hi Platt

Maybe you're right... let's examine Mary's statement again:

Mary:
>From our perspective, Pirsig chose to reverse
everything he wrote in two books with a comment in Lila's Child.

Dan comments:

First of all, which comment does she mean? She hasn't cited any. But
I'm going on the assumption that Mary means RMP's comment (which one?)
on Bo's SOL. Secondly, what does she mean by "from our perspective"?
Do Bo, Platt, and Mary possess some extradinary intellect that the
rest of us do not? I'm sure Bo would say: yes, absolutely. But I
disagree.

I put LILA'S CHILD together. Don't you think I would have noticed if
one comment contradicted everything Robert Pirsig wrote before that? I
have the power to edit the manuscript. I have the power to ask Mr.
Pirsig for clarification. But I didn't. So from MY PERPECTIVE, I am
being called an idiot. I've grown used to it from Bodvar, but et tu,
Mary?

Anthony McWatt has offered an immense body of work pertaining to the
MOQ with many, many quotes from RMP. I have yet to rea anything in
Anthony's work pertaining to Bodvar's SOL. Nothing. From your
perspective, has RMP contradicted himself there too? Or is it just the
one comment in LC?

That's what gets me riled. One comment. How dismissive. I worked on
that manuscript for thousands of hours. And you're going to dismiss it
all. Well fuck you very much. That's all I can say.

Very low quality indeed.

Dan












>
> Just asking for a discussion. Thanks.
>
> Platt
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>