[MD] just fishing

Fri Sep 21 16:31:04 PDT 2012

Hi All,

It appears to me that dmb is the one confounding labels concerning truth
and static patterns.  This is not surprising since dmb seems to take a
literal translation from a quote and leaves all the personality out of it;
as if the quote is fact.  Even then, he does not comprehend the quote he
uses.

When Pirsig states "truth is A static intellectual pattern" this implies is
that not all static intellectual patterns are truth.  This is exactly what
Marsha is saying when she says "I find it more useful to label objects of
knowledge (stuff contained in an encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of
value' ("patterns") rather than 'truths'.

dmb seems to suggest that all static patterns are truth when he states
"EQUAL TERMS are misunderstood as opposite terms".  Pirsig is clear that
static patterns and truth are not EQUAL TERMS.  He states that truths are a
subset of static patterns.  Therefore Marsha's consideration of "more
useful to label objects of knowledge (stuff contained in an encyclopedia)
as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns") rather than 'truths'" is a
better manner of consideration than dmb's somewhat myopic view.  Marsha is
suggesting that not all knowledge is truth; dmb has conflated the term
truth with static patterns and therefore will believe any static pattern he
creates.

In either case, the manner in which truth is being used by both parties is
misguided.  Truth has been converted to "opinion”.  In other words, truth
has become conditional.  As such, truth is no longer truth, and the
discussion is about something else entirely.  This whole idea of: "if it
works, it is true" sounds like something out of the sixties.  If I hit
someone over the head and he runs away, does that make it true?  How much
does something have to work to make it true?  How many truth tests are
needed?  If I do something once and it “works” does that make it true?

Sorry guys, but you are not talking about truth.  Truth has nothing to do
with pragmatism. It is much more than some kind of relative judgment.  Your
truth within Quality is different from a truth within Truth.  Therefore,
you cannot have any opinion on Plato's Truth.

Besides, you fall into that old trap. For example, is the statement "Truth
is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category
distinct from good, and coordinate with it." a true statement, or simply
one that works?  If it simply works, then how does one test it to make
sure?  The statement becomes a pronouncement, which has no place in
philosophy, but should be reserved to religion.  All this use of quotes as
pronouncements only proves that the literal is alive and well in this
forum, and any critical thinking is often dead.

Please let's stop the semantic nonsense so that we can discuss Quality.  We
are discussing BIG subjects, not how somebody feels about something.

Cheers,

Mark

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
wrote:

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)

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