[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, Andre, Group.

Mary to everyone:
> The platypus of truth.  Either you believe something is true for all time
> regardless of whether it is known or understood at the time, or you
> believe truth is contextual and provisional - true now but not true
> before.

Right TRUTH is an intellectual pattern or in a way INTELLECT ITSELF 
in so many forms (objectivity that presupposes truth. But while intellect 
was SOM (before the MOQ) it created  paradoxes - platypuses - 
galore.    

Andre:

> All you have written is SOM! 'Truth' is no platypus. In the MOQ
> 'Truth'is not a 'belief' either. It makes reference to the highest
> intellectual explanation of any given experience at the time. Because
> all is in a constant motion of flux, because all is undifferentiated,
> all notions of truth are provisional. Belief does not come in to the
> equation. 

Well,  Mary did write about SOM, but if Truth is the highest intellectual 
explanation OF ANY GIVEN TIME is dubious. When Stone Age 
humankind "explained" the heavenly lights as god and goddesses and 
it was hardly an "intellectual explanation" because that level had not 
been reached yet.   


Bodvar

























> Mary:
> It renders the debate moot by raising our consciousness to the realization
> that we only have the debate at all because we are trapped in the
> subject-object dichotomy.
> 
> Andre:
> Speak for yourself Mary...( on behalf of Bodvar) The fundamental premise
> of the MOQ is ver, very clear.
> 
> Mary:
> Once the assumption that subjects and objects are all there is is
> transcended and we see that Quality is all there is, the futility of the
> argument is apparent.
> 
> Andre:
> This shows very clearly you do not read Mr. Pirsig very well and you do
> not accept the MOQ's basic, fundamental premise.
> 
> Mary:
> 
> Static patterns of value represent Dynamic Quality.
> 
> Andre:
> Here we go again.
> 
> Mary:
> The world as we know it is composed of nothing but static patterns of
> value.
> 
> Andre:
> Here we go again.
> 
> Mary:
> Truth is a SOL static pattern of value.
> 
> Andre:
> Because you say so?
> 
> Mary:
> For something to be "true" something else must be "false".
> 
> Andre:
> This is indeed the logical conclusion from a SOM perspective.The either/or
> fallacy.
> 
> Mary:
> Time is also a static pattern of value.  The concept of beginning and end,
> future and past logically had to have been the "first" static pattern
> there was.
> 
> This is because without the concept of time, there can be no change. 
> Change requires comparison.  Without a "prior", what would be the change?
> 
> Andre:
> Turn this 'logic' around' and you may begin to understand the static
> intellectual pattern (arisen from dynamic experience) that gave rise to
> the concept of time.
> 
> Mary:
> All static patterns are SOL.
> 
> Andre:
> Western imperialism and hegemony in one small sentence.
> 
> Mary:
> Therefore, static patterns are neither "true" nor "untrue" because the
> concept of truth is itself a static pattern.
> 
> Andre:
> Ma ma go go... y ban ban ( this means: half/half, not quite there, only so
> so) truth is provisional. Whatever you want to make of the implications
> for all other static patterns is up to you to figure out... but your SOM
> intellect will only throw up more platypuses.
> 
> Mary:
> So how do we resolve the nature of the static pattern of value we have
> chosen to call "truth"?
> 
> Andre:
> Where in the MOQ do you find this claim?
> 
> Mary:
> What is true is relative and provisional and static - subject to change -
> evolution.
> 
> Truth is a static pattern where we can easily see a demonstration of the
> fact that static patterns though stable are not immutable.
> 
> Andre:
> You say it, but you don't! What drives the whole thing is DQ/SQ. Your SOM
> does not recognize this.
> 
>