[MD] just fishing

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
I find it more _useful_ to label objects of knowledge (stuff contained in an encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns") rather than 'truths'.  RMP selected the best word when he chose 'patterns'; it offers the best representation.  If you think it is confusing that I go along with RMP's vernacular, I suggest that it is you who is confused.

dmb says:
Your inability to grasp the meaning of Pirsig's terms is on full display once again. In this case you are opposing terms that Pirsig equates. You are pitting the pragmatic truth AGAINST static patterns even though Pirsig says that truth IS exactly that. 

PIRSIG in LILA: James said, "Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it." He said, "The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief."  "*Truth is a species of good*." That was right on. That was *exactly* what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a static intellectual pattern *within* a larger entity called Quality. 

Where Pirsig says "truth IS a static intellectual pattern", Marsha says "I find it more useful to label knowledge as static patterns rather than truth".  How can anyone fail to see how utterly confused that is? Equal terms are misunderstood as opposite terms. Is it even possible to be more mistaken than that? I don't see how. 


Marsha said:In my understanding of the MoQ there is Quality(Dynamic/static); "pragmatic truth" belongs to William James. I prefer to use RMP's term 'static patterns of value'.   If you'd like to compare and contrast the MoQ's 'static patterns of value' with W. James's 'pragmatic truths', please do.  Maybe you could write a paper and submit it to a professional organization/journal to be reviewed by a board of scholars?  Otherwise, blow it out your ass!

dmb says:
As any reasonable person can see from the quote above, Pirsig is the one claiming that James's conception of truth was "right on" and "exactly what is meant by the MOQ". This is another case wherein Marsha turns equal terms into opposite terms, but in this case we even have Pirsig on record explicitly saying that the terms have EXACTLY the same meaning.

On top of that intellectual mess, Marsha is also being rather vulgar, insulting and, above all, dishonestly evasive. Going by her track record of opposing equal terms and equating opposed terms, Marsha will take this to mean that she's being classy, kind and intellectually honest. 

In what strange world is it considered "useful" to employ the wrong labels for everything? In what sense is it "useful" to be mixed up about the meaning of words? What use could such contradictory utterances be to anyone? It sure isn't helping Marsha to make any sense. 

Yesterday I posted a long reply to David Harding explaining how the pragmatic theory of truth fits into the larger structure of the MOQ. I won't ask you to accept it, to agree with it or even to like it. But if you can convince me that you understand it, I'll send you a one-hundred dollar bill with an autographed apology written on it. (Suitable for framing!) You can't lose money on this deal. It's not a bet. I'm just saying I'll pay real money to see you make sense of words in a row and to put words in a row so that they make sense.

Can you do it? I think my money is quite safe. 




------------------------------------------------------------
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:02 PM, david buchanan wrote:

“. . . the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. [This is widely known as the correspondence theory of truth - anyone can look it up.] But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along."

"The difference between a good mechanic and bad one, like the difference between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely this ability to SELECT the good facts from the bad ones on the basis of quality. He has to CARE! This is an ability about which formal traditional scientific method has nothing to say. It's long past time to take a closer look at the qualitative preselection of facts which has seemed so scrupulously ignored by those who make so much the these facts after they are 'observed'. I think that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and brings it far closer to actual scientific practice."  (ZAMM 281-2, emphasis is Pirsig's)

"It is this identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. And it is this identity that modern, dualistically conceived technology lacks. The creator of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The owner of it feels no particular sense of identity with it, The user feels no particular sense of identity with it. Hence, by Phaedrus' definition, it has no Quality." (ZAMM 290-291)

"The way to solve the conflict between human values and technological needs is not to run away from technology. That's impossible. The way to resolve the conflict is to break down the barriers of dualistic thought that prevent a real understanding of what technology is - not an exploitation of nature, but a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that transcends both. (like the first airplane flight or the first steps on the moon.) ...But this transcendence should also occur at the individual level, on a personal basis, in one's own life, in a less dramatic way." (ZAMM 291)