[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[Mary]

Hello Andre,

On Behalf Of Andre Broersen
> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 10:15 AM
> 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.
> 
> Andre:
> All you have written is SOM!
> 
[Mary Replies] 
What was the next sentence?  I believe it was something like "The MoQ
corresponds to neither of these."  Or something like that.  So what are you
upset about?

> '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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Agreed.

> 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 Replies] 
You post is most puzzling.  You seem to disagree with me in some way, but
without further information I cannot discern what way.  I would like to know
what is "very, very clear" to you that is not in agreement with what I said?
It must be something important, because you sound angry about it.
 
> 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 Replies] 
Again I experience more puzzlement.  Since I actually have read both ZMM and
Lila numerous times over the past 12 years or so, I'll need some specifics
before I can respond intelligently to your attack on me.  Perhaps you would
like to begin by telling me what the MoQ's "basic fundamental premise" is as
you see it.  That would be a productive start.

Teach me, Andre.  With understanding I might be convinced.

> Mary:
> 
> Static patterns of value represent Dynamic Quality.
> 
> Andre:
> Here we go again.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Are you always this rude or have I said something to personally offend you?

> Mary:
> The world as we know it is composed of nothing but static patterns of
> value.
> 
> Andre:
> Here we go again.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
If it was something I said, then I apologize - as you should too.

> Mary:
> Truth is a SOL static pattern of value.
> 
> Andre:
> Because you say so?
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I take it you disagree with my statement?  If so, in what way?  Would you
like to explain what bothers you?  I am open to hearing it, because we are
not likely to understand each other otherwise.

> 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 Replies] 
We seem to agree on this.

> 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 Replies] 
Come again?  "Turn this logic around" to what?

> Mary:
> All static patterns are SOL.
> 
> Andre:
> Western imperialism and hegemony in one small sentence.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Great!  Now I have something concrete to respond to.  

In no way do I believe the West to be superior to the East.  

You are way off base here.  I would never say anything of the kind.  I
highly value the teachings of the Buddha, for instance.  What I do believe
it that there is no difference between the manner of thought in the East and
the West.  Both use SOL.  

I do have to wonder what you believe.  

The implication seems to be that the East is incapable of SOL.  

Surely not, as that would be a very racist and ignorant thing to say.  Don't
you think?  Is the "inscrutable East" so foreign to westerners that we would
invent an entirely different metaphysics for them to explain their outlook?
Are they not capable of SOL just as we are?  We are all Homo-Sapiens after
all.  Both East and West employ subject-object logic though it seems that
you are the one who has a problem admitting that.  

In future please refrain from accusing me of saying they do not, for I will
patiently refer you back to this post for correction.

> 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 Replies] 
Exactly my point.  Did you not read my post?  Were you reading some other
person's post and responding to mine?  I'm sorry, but this is making no
sense to me.  What you seem to be objecting to has no relationship to what I
said, ma chere amour.

> 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 Replies] 
I can answer this two ways:
1) Andre, I was asking a question, not making a statement.
or
2) Are you saying that truth is not a static pattern of value?  If not, why
not?  Do you ascribe to absolutes rather than relatives?

> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Yes.  What "drives the whole thing" is DQ.  SQ is a fallout of DQ.  SQ is
not reality, DQ is.  Would you care to explain how "SOM does not recognize
this", because SOM actually does recognize this - in the form of the MoQ.

Best,
Mary