[MD] killing truth, again

[118]

Hi,
Thanks dmb for your clear presentation below.  I have some comments.  Truth
can come in many different disguises.  To say that truth is an intellectual
pattern is taken as a truth in itself.  We therefore have one intellectual
pattern describing another intellectual pattern.  This is where the web you
speak of comes in.  This web is the result of a creative man, and it points
towards its own creativity.  The pragmatic truth is another strand in this
web.

There are times, however, when this web is considered as insufficient.
 This is a Buddhist concept.  Because of its perceived insufficiency, an
attempt is made to break such patterns so as to see with a fresh pair of
eyes.  This is what MoQ is about.  MoQ is not a truth, nor was it ever
meant to be.  It is a doorway into a different way of seeing things.
 Truths are not important within MoQ, what is important is Description.
 This puts description as primary rather than truth.  This puts Quality as
primary.

There are truths that are not patterns at all.  Such truths are what begin
the formation of High Quality Patterns and therefore do not consist of any
dictates at all.  The truth I am pointing to is the truth of awareness.
 Pirsig became aware of a different manner of constructing a web.  Since
this was not in harmony with the established Western method, it could be
considered as "insane".  This manner of interpretation (insane), is dealt
with quite a bit in both ZAMM and Lila.  Therefore it can be considered as
an important concept for describing Quality.  As such, the truths within
Quality are different from the truths embodied in the Objective
characterization of Reality.  These "different" truths result in what could
be termed a spiritual rationality.  Their principles are not embodied in
the cause-effect, or "If/then" constructs of Western rationality, but in a
rationality created from relationship.

MoQ, as I understand it, puts Quality as the primary source of
relationship.  Quality is what "creates" relationship.  If we are presented
with two apples, we see Quality as a primary source.  The apples themselves
do not have Quality.  Rather, what lies between the apples is where Quality
is found.  It is Quality therefore which creates the good apple and the bad
apple.  Using the same form of logic, we can also say that it is Quality
which creates the past and the future.  For it is Quality that lies between
these.  Without Quality none of these things could exist.  In terms of the
past/future concept, since we have Quality (which I will also term DQ in
this case) which lies between both qualitative judgements, DQ can be
considered as the ever-present.  For it is from the present that everything
is born. This present cannot be pointed to, nor can it be described, yet we
all know what it is.  If one looks for it, it is gone.  Yet, it is all we
have.

More opinions below if you are interested.

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
> Arlo said to dmb:
> ...Would you describe 'truths' as high-Quality intellectual patterns? I'm
> thinking along the lines of: the greater the explanatory power, the greater
> the affordances to activity, the greater the cohesion with experience, all
> these things which are evaluative measures of intellectual Quality seem
> linked to the notion of pragmatic truth.  For example, the flat-earth
> theory is an intellectual pattern, but it is  a low-quality intellectual
> pattern because it lacks the explanatory power, affordances ..that an
> ellispoid-earth theory offers. 'Truth', seems to me, to be good and simple
> way to say 'high-quality intellectual pattern of value', and that
> evaluation rests on pragmatic-experiential cohesion. Does this gel with
> what you are saying?
>
>
> dmb says:
> Yea, the pragmatic definition says that truth is an intellectual pattern
> and that entails the first of two major elements. For a concept to count
> as truth, as you say, it has to have explanatory power or predictive power
> - and all kinds of qualities like clarity and precision enter into it too.
> But - something I haven't mentioned much - the quality of an idea is also
> very much about how well it fits with all the other relevant concepts in
> the total web of beliefs. Remember that part in ZAMM, as he's wrapping up
> the sermon on Poincare, where he says that it's the harmony of ideas that
> really holds the world together?


Comment: When he states the world, he means the world as created by the
imagination of man.  That is, our interpretation of such world.


> We recognize the harmonious reasonings of other reasonable creatures like
> ourselves, he says, and this harmony is the sole basis of our "objective"
> reality.
>

Comment: This sounds correct to me.  What was left out was the aspect of
creativity.  The basis for our "objective" reality is creativity.  It is
from such creativity that the ghosts of reason are born.  In our modern
world, these ghosts or reason have given worship within a "cult of reason".
 This worship is so strong, that man thinks he is actually perceiving
reality as it is, not as he creates it.

The pragmatic definition of truth says that intellectual quality always
> exists within a larger entity called Quality. This is the second element of
> truth, the empirical element.


Comment:  The empirical element is only as good as the web which it resides
in.  In this sense, "empiricism" is subjective.  What can be termed as
empirical is by manner of agreement, getting stuck in the web, as it were.


> Truths are always subordinate to this primary empirical reality, always
> have to agree with experience, operate within experience. For Pirsig, this
> is reality as such and concepts can only have value in relation to reality.
> The MOQ is radically empirical, meaning it's empirical all the way down to
> bone marrow. Reality is experience and experience is reality.
>

Comment:  I think this is backwards.  Truths are what create the primary
empirical reality.  Truths tell us how to interpret the experience we
create.  Again, this primary empirical reality is part of the web.  It is
an agreed on reality.  That it is useful also only has meaning within this
web.  For example, in this web, it is considered that survival is
paramount.  However, there is no basis for this elevation of survival, it
is simply taken as a truth which then results in more truths.  It is a
structure built on an assumption.


> As James puts it, pragmatic truths are tightly controlled by these two
> elements; truths are wedged between the conceptual order (those harmonious
> reasonings) and the perceptual flux (dynamic experience).


Comment:  Again, I would like to point out that dynamic experience is
something which we create.  Outside of our creation of it, there would be
no experience.  It is therefore misleading to try to separate dynamic
experience from the conceptual order since both are the same thing.  The
manner in which we reason, IS experience, not different from a hot stove.
 I think this is important towards understanding Quality.

This is just a different way to say the same thing as Pirsig, where he
> says, "truth is a static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called
> Quality".
>

Comment:  Again I would like to point out that the statement which  Pirsig
provides cannot be considered a truth outside of an intellectual pattern.
 This again is a ghost of reason.


> There can be many truths in this picture because it has replaced the idea
> of eternal Truth or objective Truth and instead sees all concepts and all
> knowledge as parts of one giant pile of analogies, as parts of our total
> understanding. From this perspective, knowledge and truth is a species of
> the good, a servant of life. From this perspective Einstein is not truer
> than Newton anymore that liters are truer than gallons. But that doesn't
> mean it's okay to put a gallon of gas into a one liter bottle. It doesn't
> mean we get to be sloppy about the meaning of our analogies or the
> precision of our truths.
>

Comment:  It seems that the term "analogy" is insufficient to describe
this.  As such, analogies are patterns we create as the result of our
experience. When put together, these analogies (or patterns) form a web.
 And I can then point to the Buddhist concept that such a "pile of
analogies" can be considered insufficient for some.  Those who are so
inclined find alternate means for creating patterns.  If one uses the
examples of Lila to construct a world of one's own, then one is left with
an "alternate reality"

One thing that I think you left out with your scientists or units of
measurement is "usefulness".  Many in the US would find gallons more
useful.  Most would find Newton's presentation most useful.  We could
therefore say that Newton's presentation is more true than Einsteins.  That
is, it applies most of the time.  Einstein simply has taken what Newton
presented, and opened up a small section for "special cases".

>
> Ron:
> I think I understand alittle bit better now, thanks for the clarification
> regarding pragmatic truths and the perceptual
> flux, but what I was after was what you had said about the sloppy-ness of
> meaning, the consequences in
> experience. The trick is and I think this is what was hindering me, is to
> not look at experience, that
> perceptual flux, as disassociated with meaning. What really interests me
> is how the term "precision"
> and it's operable functional meaning as it directly relates to the
> perceptual flux intigrates, because
> it seems to me to be rather odd that precision is so directly related to
> that which is allways and
> eternally changing.
> I fully realize that comparing and contrasting what has been said about
> the perceptual flux and conceptions
> of the true in Pragmatism with the ancient Greeks particularly Socrates
> and Aristotle has been very
> unpopular with you, but to me it's a terribly interesting topic of
> discussion and I respect your opinion
> even if you disagree with the bulk of my aim. It's just you and a few
> others are the only ones capable
> of having a reasonable philosophic discussion without alot of un-needed
> drama and I value your
> contributions greatly.
>
> Thanks to both you and Arlo for taking a stand in a flood of idiocy.
>

Well, one man's wisdom is another man's idiocy.  It is a shame that Ron
would use this forum to disparage the opinions of others as if his opinion
is true.  If this is what he is doing he has not been paying attention to
MoQ.  The drama is all in his head.  He is charging at windmills which is
unfortunate for a discussion.  Ron seems to want to take sides against
others rather than discuss issues.  In his "flood of idiocy" Ron has
replaced logic with emotion, for this "flood of idiocy" has no purpose in
philosophy, it is a battle cry for a crusade.

Still, I am sure he is a nice guy if perhaps a bit arrogant.  I was hoping
this forum would desist from this childish behavior in the face of
a fascinating topic such as Quality.  However, it will no doubt take time
to sort this all out.  It is not a matter of who is "right" for that just
takes one into the paradoxes of truth, and we know better.  We are speaking
through rhetoric here.  Remember ZAMM and his distaste for academic
pondering?  Remember in Lila his consideration of philosophology (or the
study of what others have said)?  These are simply ghosts of reason that
have no other basis than agreement.  As soon as one considers himself to be
on the side of God, all is lost.

Once we have realized the creative aspect of all of this, we can try to
paint better pictures.  But is a Rembrant better than a Monet?  Think about
it.  If Ron wants to argue that a Rembrant is better, that is not
philosophy.  That is simply trying to create an enemy to gives oneself
purpose.  It is like thinking that dodgeball is the main point of school.
 Some of us are here to learn, not to be throwing a ball at another
participant.

Best regards,
Mark

>
>
>
>
> .
> 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
>