[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[Ian Glendinning]

Steve,

First point the one you didn't get ...
You had said
"I agree that it is indeed the same thing to assert that something is
true and to assert that you are justified in believing that same
something."

I said politely, no, you're not agreeing because I didn't say it was
"the same thing" - I said they are different conversations, one
useless (without quality), one useful (with quality).

Quoting Pirsig to Ant you said
"For purposes of MOQ precision let’s say that [the assertion "X
is true" is true if and only if X is true."]" This answer would fit
his desire to stay with the usual dictionary definitions wherever
possible, and also have that grumpy edge we might expect in response
to such a question."

Grumpy ? Huh ? Surely that is Bob's little joke !
To show how useless a definition of truth is. I can hear him chuckle
as he writes it.

Anyway, I'm still a little baffled at your agenda with DMB here, maybe
I'm outta touch ... your rhetoric is weird ...

"all this is a problem for A who wants to dismiss X as simply YZ"

Problem, wants, dismiss, simply ... ? Really loaded stuff.
I need to back out and let DMB answer you, but I'm not hearing him say
what you imply.
Ian






On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Ian said:
>> Hmmmm Steve ,,, not really ...
>>
>> I wouldn't / didn't say "the same thing as" that would be a
>> categorical ontological statement about what truth "is".
>
> Steve:
> I don't know what you are referring to here.
>