On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:17 PM, John Carl wrote:
> Ok Marsha,
>
> Only a few points to clear up.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> John:
>>> First, we both agree that rationality is not absolute.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Rationality claims to be absolute: a thing cannot be both A and not-A.
>>
>>
> John:
>
> Ok, how does rationality make claims? I'd say rationality is a game with
> rules, that we decide to play where its appropriate. Rationality can't be
> both absolute and non-absolute, is just a basic premise of our discussion
> right now.
Marsha:
You are correct. Rationality doesn't make claims. The claim is a part
of the patterns in the Intellectual Level. Rational - irrational? Pick one.
>>> John:
>>> AND it doesn't get the last word, i.e. if something seems completely
>>> rationally plausible, but doesn't "feel' right, then we look deeper.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> I would wish to make this a habit of value.
>>
>>
> There's a sign at the school my son attends that I've been pondering
> lately.
>
> Watch your thoughts, they become words
> Watch your words, they become actions
> Watch your actions, they become habits
> Watch your habits, they become your character
> Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.
>
> Watch your destiny go down the drain.
Marsha:
Destiny? Are you missing out on a chance to assume the Alexander
the Great position? And me, might I be the next Cleopatra? That is
not my kind of dream. I would be happy being one who is awakening
from such dreams.
> Ok, that last part I added myself. But it's kind of the way the whole
> poster makes me feel.
Marsha:
"In every colour there's the light.
In every stone sleeps a crystal.
Remember the Shaman, when he used to say:
"Man is the dream of the dolphin".
(Enigma)
>>> John:
>>> We examine the underlying issues that cause the bad feelings.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> It would be nice if so many of the causes were not out of our awareness.
>>
>>
>>> John:
>>> But we can't just stop with "it feels wrong" because relying upon
>>> feelings and intuitions alone would be as foolish as relying upon
>>> logic and rationality alone, correct?
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Incorrect. If a thing must never be both A and not-A, and that is
>> understood
>> as the final arbiter, well then things get really messed up. Surely that
>> is
>> obvious!
>>
>>
>
> John:
> Obvious to one person is mysterious to another. Built-in to every word
> we speak or think is ambiguity. Its out of ambiguity and paradox that
> meaning is constructed.
Marsha:
It's great when you're this smart.
>>> John:
>>> Neither can be complete in themselves. They must be in accord.
>>> They must dance together and not step on each other's toes.
>>> Do you not agree?
>>
>> Marsha:
>> I don't agree or disagree. Agreement based on faulty logic is
>> not always a worthy goal.
>>
>>
> John:
> This is where conversation gets frustrating. It seems you have a bias
> against mutual understanding. An aversion to "being taken".
No. I don't think so, and it doesn't feel so either. What's to take? I see
things differently. That's okay, yes?
> Ellul talks about this in his contrast between empirical reality, and
> conceptual truth.
Phooey!
> Truth is fixed and absolute but our grasp of it is always relative and
> nebulous.
Phooey!
> Reality is mysterious and shifting and unknowable but our grasp
> of it is concrete and obdurate.
Huh!
> By what you say about rationality, I think you've got them mixed up
> somehow. And this is why you get charged with being a truth relativist.
Did you miss:
Anthony writes:
“Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and,
trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic
notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while
Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined
as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time.
RMP:
If the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken
provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can
then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings
in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the ‘real’
painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are
many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some
to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result
of our history and current patterns of values. (Pirsig, 1991, p.103)”
(McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook)
As far as I am concerned, the MoQ is epistemologically relativistic and
ontologically indeterminate. So there!
>>> John:
>>> Yes but my quest for understanding makes me wonder why. It
>>> drives me deeper into more questions. More digging. Intellectual
>>> probing is utterly instinctual and a self-driving force. I can certainly
>>> stop pestering with questions, but I can't stop (or don't wanna) asking
>>> why in my own mind.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> This makes you irresistibly attractive to me. This is personal, but no
>> matter how outlandish (The Son? Really!!!) the questions, even those
>> pesky theistic ones, because I am an introverted thinker, I find them
>> endlessly seductive. But the ABSOLUTE answer came to me a long
>> time ago: "There is no answer now, there never was an answer in the
>> past, and there never will be an answer in the future." Ah-men!!!
>>
>> Not A
>> Not -A
>> Not (A and -A)
>> Not (neither A nor -A)
>>
>> Not this, not that...
>>
>> Quality! Emptiness! Love!
>>
>> I do love to laugh...
>>
>>
>> ((( And damn to that pesky karma... )))
>>
>
>
> Well I wouldn't want to be a slave to fear of karma, but I wouldn't want to
> ignore it completely either. I think a subtle interplay is called for,
> indeed.
Karma drags me back to old habits, the kind of habits of value Ron insists
I have. I am sure he must know. I suppose these old patterns need to play
themselves out.
Love you John,
Marsha
___
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
