[MD] just fishing

[Ian Glendinning]

dmb, if we can focus on the "definition" ...

(BTW I still don't see any disagreement with Marsha, except in your
intent - later.)

So, the truth is, "truth is a static intellectual patterns WITHIN Quality".
Agreed - not in the least contentious.

You then re-interpret in your own words using "pragmatic" truth, but
this is not really what Pirsig is saying.

The truth is ANY (objective) intellectual object is a static pattern
WITHIN Quality, because any object is a static pattern in the MoQ.
Pirsig's statement simply re-affirms this is true (even) for any
intellectual pattern we call truth.

The most useful thing you've brought into the "pragmatism" debate is I
believe joining up James "radical empiricism" with the dynamic,
pre-conceptual experience Pirsig calls Quality. Pragmatism here - the
real world itself - is about the relation between experience and
truth, not the definition of truth.

Essentially, like a cracked record, I'm saying, I don't think it helps
(unless you're looking for a fight) to focus on the definition of
truth - as if it had an "objective" definition.

Personally believe that is all Marsha is ever saying - beneath the
mutual delight in winding each other up ;-)

Given your contribution on radical empiricism, I find it sad that you
(and not you alone) go after objective definitions of Pirsigian terms
- like Pirsig's bulldog. Like an analytic philosopher intent on
getting his teeth into definitive, objective views of reality -
paradoxically, the antithesis of what the MoQ is about.

You see those of us who reject your objective analysis as dodging your
arguments - in a sense we are. We are dodging their analytical premise
that demands all valid arguments are based on objective definitions.
Sincerely,
Ian

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:41 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lucy said to dmb:
> Why don't you amuse everyone and offer your definition of 'truth'?  I need a laugh.
>
>
> dmb says:
> "That was EXACTLY what is meant by the MOQ. Truth is a static intellectual pattern WITHIN a larger entity called Quality." (Lila -- Emphasis is Pirsig's)
>
> Or, as I put it elsewhere, pragmatic truths are true in relation to experience. This is also what it means to say static truths are secondary, to say they are subordinate to Quality or to say they are derived from Quality. These are just various ways to say the same thing about pragmatic truths.
>
> That is the definition of the MOQ's pragmatic truth, which is meant to replace SOM's objective truth. That pragmatic definition is the solution whereas objective Truth is the problem.
>
> And - even though you think it's funny to pretend otherwise - I've been arguing that you are deeply confused about these two definitions of truth. You've rejected the solution as if it were the problem. Sadly, there is still no reason to believe that you have comprehend this criticism and so it still stands.
> 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