> Hi Platt:
>>>>> Platt: >>>>>> Patterns of thought are often social patterns as Pirsig explains: >>>>>> "And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks is as >>>>>> dominated by social patterns as social patterns are dominated by >>>>>> biological patterns and as biological patterns are dominated by >>>>>> inorganic patterns." (Lila, 12) >>>>> >>>>> Steve: >>>>> Pirsig is not saying that some thoughts are social patterns any >>>>> more >>>>> than he is saying that some animals are inorganic patterns. He >>>>> is saying >>>>> that ALL thoughts are based on social patterns as all social >>>>> patterns >>>>> are based on biological patterns and so on. >>> >>> Platt: >>>> Exactly. You cannot separate thought patterns and consider them >>>> independent >>>> of social patterns as you seem to suggest. >>> >>> Steve: >>> Thought (intellectual) patterns are not independent of social >>> patterns. I >>> have never suggested that. >>> >>> I only corrected your statement that "patterns of thought are >>> often social >>> patterns." Patterns of thought are intellectual patterns >>> regardless of who >>> holds the idea. Ideas may support some social patterns or be >>> antagonistic to >>> some social patterns but they are still ideas, not social pattern >>> themselves. >> Platt: >> We disagree on this. There are plenty of static social ideas >> around IMO, >> including the idea that religion can tell us something about about >> reality >> and morality that reason can't. But, let it rest. Steve quotes RMP from LC: "45. After the beginning of history inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns are found existing together in the same person. I think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in which one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing social patterns and the other side intellectually opposes the existing social patterns..." All justifications are intellectual patterns (as I was arguing that using faith as justification for belief is an intellectual pattern which I have further argued is a dangerous one). Your example of "the idea that religion can tell us something about about reality and morality that reason can't" is an intellectual justification of a social pattern rather than a social pattern itself. Regards, Steve 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/
