Comments below:
[Matt]
> I think you probably agree perfectly well with this
> last point. But I think doing so puts us right in
> the position Rorty suggests we are always
> in--balancing our self-descriptions with a decent
> respect for the opinions of others. The problem
> that Pirsig doesn't face up to fully is that _all
> philosophical accounts have a pigeon-hole for
> everything--that's what makes them philosophical_.
> The trouble philosophers have with each other, the
> problem Pirsig had with the postivists, is that they
> sometimes don't like the pigeon-hole that other
> philosophers put the stuff they like in. The
> positivists thought values were real--they just
> didn't think they were verifiable in the way that
> rocks were, and were emotive responses, not rational
> like physics. They don't ignore values--they have a
> pigeon-hole for them. A philosopher that can't
> place something is just incompetent.
> No, the real struggle is finding the best
> descriptions for things. Pirsig did smell something
> wrong with the positivists, and so there was. The
> fight between radically different worldviews isn't
> something easily cleared up, as seems to be implied
> by the kind of rhetoric you and Pirsig use, as if we
> could just show the positivist a value, or Bush a
> human right, and that would clear everything up.
> The fight is much more harrowing than all that, a
> much bigger struggle.
I agree, here, with the pigeon-holing. This
seems to capture more of what I'm trying to say when
it comes to intellectualizing.
Ham, Bo, Ian, Ron, Matt, and others are
intellectualizing. It is a quality pattern or a
pattern of quality. Each may define intellectualizing
differently, but as with quality, we know what
intellectualizing is but we can't completely define
it. This is how static patterns have an aspect of dq
involvement.
I may not like other perspectives, not completely
understand other perspectives, and may differ on
certain specifics due to what I'm trying to discuss at
any one moment. Sure our experiences differ. What is
interesting about saying, "We all intellectualize",
and then boom! What is intellect? What is
intellectualizing? These questions are the same as,
"What is quality?". We may all see
intellectualization and we may call ones
intellectualization dialectical, practical, and still
anothers a good work of art, but is intellect being
questioned here? Are people trying to say intellect
is not involved in these activities? I would find it
difficult to see how these exercises do not involve
intellect. Now some may say dialectical is more
rational, experience is more rational, etc..., so, I
don't think it is intellect being questioned as
present or not. I think it is more the KIND of
intellect that is under question, and where a certain
number of people thrive to define and make more
static.
Intellect, being a pattern of quality, is what
one knows when they see it, but find it even more
difficult to define - for it is quality anyways.
woods,
SA
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
