I take the term 'truth' to mean "conformity with fact or reality". In most definitions, “reality” is pretty much defined as “that which exists”. In the MoQ, static patterns on value exist; exist not as independent, inherent entities, but as patterns. As such, I take static patterns of value to represent truths. Anybody have a problem with the above statement?
would it matter one bit if they did?
Exactly. I have at least five serious problems with that little piece of drivel but nobody cares. Marsha cares least of all.
Doesn't anyone care about making sense? Whatever happened to communicating with other human beings about intelligible ideas?
Ron observes and attempts to make lemonade: Marsha aside, It is interesting to note that Aristotle danced around the same subject only he was still tangeling with the "being/non-being" issue which was intertwined with the true/false, unity/plurality and good/evil. It was contrarities he was dealing with when it came to meaning but he went the same way with explanation that W.James I believe saw was that belief and how we shape belief defines what we mean when we say things are true because in a way of belief they really are saying that they "are". One can sense the slide toward the objective when the Greeks associate unity, in meaning with the true and they meant unity in continuity and in measure when they spoke about the intelligible as the good.
Where I see Pirsig picking up the torch and advancing on this perenial situation is the explanation of contrarity as conflicting forms of good which would translate as conflicting/competing forms of being and as conflicting/competing forms of unity. I guess it would also translate into the idea that empiricism is more accurately conceived as a competting form of the rational or that empiricism is a high Quality idea.
Now, having said this, some would say that the only truth that means anything at all is what some would call conventional but if this is the sort of truth that we can ever "know" and by "know" we mean "value", then it stands to reason that this is the only truth that we can say "exists".
This is the truth that forms belief. HOW conventional is that?