Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:01:45 +0100
Platt Holden wrote:
>
> Hi Diana and LS:
>
> Doug said:
>
> > One of the big reasons that Pirsig wrote ZMM and Lila is The Church of
> > Reason: The SOM idea that we can know absolute truth. Pirsig's whole
> > premise is that we need a new form of thought, a new philosophy which
> > rejects and subsumes this archaic legacy.
>
> I agree with Doug that truth, or rather "many truths" is an essential
> principle of the MoQ. So I was stunned to see it missing from the published
> edition. A metaphysics without a definition of truth is like an airplane
> without wings.
The idea that there are many truths is already integrated in the
principles. Ironically it is precisely because of this that I have
shunned away from definitions of Quality that say anything more than
Quality is reality, including Platt's "immanent and transcendent" bit.
When Pirsig says there are many truths I interpreted it to mean that the
SOM is true, the MoQ is true, the classic-romantic split is true etc.
These are all valid ways of understanding reality. All the MoQ says is
that the static-dynamic split is the *best* way of dividing reality. And
that's what I've said too:
"The best way to divide Quality is into patterns of Dynamic and static
value or experience."
That could be clarified by saying:
"There are many ways to divide Quality but the best way is into patterns
of Dynamic and static value or experience."
If the definition of Quality had said "Quality is immanent and
transcendent reality" it would have implied that Quality is composed of
immanence and transcendence, that immanence and transcendence is the
ultimate Truth, truer than the others. By leaving the definition of
Quality open and presenting the Dynamic-static split as the "best" split
and not the only one, the MoQ is left open to evolve as necessary.
As for the definition of truth. As I've already allowed for different
paradigms of reality, then different truths are also possible. The MoQ
says that there is no such thing as objectivity (or at least is
subordinates it so a lowly intellectual pattern). The idea of truth is
dependent on objectivity. If objectivity isn't very important in the
MoQ, then neither is truth.
Aside from the paragraph about many truths, if I recall correctly the
only other time Pirsig mentions truth is in relation to William James.
And that is motivated by a desire to gain credibility for the MoQ by
linking it to mainstream philosophy. It doesn't seem to be because of
any real need to explain truth within the MoQ itself.
Oh well better dig up Platt's principle anyway...
11. The Truth Principle. Truth, an intellectual value pattern, is a
species
of Good. There's no single, exclusive truth, but those of high quality
are
empirical, logical, elegant and brief. In any case, it's immoral for
truth
to be subordinated to social values.
There's no need to say it's good and it's a value pattern as earlier
principles have already said that good and value are the same thing.
"Exclusive" is redundant if we've already said "single".
Do they have to be empirical? High quality truths certainly don't need
to be logical. High quality anything is elegant and simple, in other
words aesthetically pleasing that's already been said in the
static-dynamic principle.
It is immoral for any intellectual patterns to be subordinated to a
social pattern, that's already been said too. That leaves us with:
Truth is an intellectual value pattern. There is no single truth only
high quality and low quality truths.
I think the reason I didn't want to include this was that everything you
can say about truth can be deduced from the other principles and it
seems to be at a tangent to everything else. It's more of an application
of the MoQ than an integral part of it.
And if we explain truth, do we then need to say things about all the
other philosophical concepts that people are bound to ask about - god,
the soul, time, unity, mind, artificial intelligence. Not that there's
anything wrong with these questions, they're just not elements of the
MoQ. I'm still not convinced that the "self", and "proof" principles are
absolutely necessary.
Well maybe I've missed something. If you could base your argument on
reason and evidence rather than aviation engineering I might take it
more seriously;-)
Diana
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST