"...and most of the troubles are caused by what old time radio men called a
'short between the earphones,' failures to use the head properly. A motorcycle
functions entirely in accordance with the laws of reason, and a study of the
art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of
rationality itself. ...to get into that it's vital to stay with down-to-earth
examples of rationality, so as not to get lost in generalities no one else can
understand. Talk about rationality can get very confusing unless the things
with which rationality deals are also included. ... In a motorcycle this
precision isn't maintained for any romantic or perfectionist reasons. It's
simply that the enormous forces of heat and explosive pressure inside the
engine can only be controlled through the kind of precision these instruments
give." (ZAMM, 98-9)
"Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them."
(Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, 214.)
Matt said to Ian:
...Sometimes I get tired of people not being able to talk to each other. When
that happens, the thing to do--it seems to me--is to start at the beginning,
with principles of interpretation, the rules of the game of rationality. You
say what I said isn't "contentious," but when I started posting interpretations
of Pirsig that were contentious in content, one of the things I was slammed for
was my method, my interpretive principles. The reason to reiterate these,
whatever they are, isn't to bash each other again with one more weapon, but to
try to start the conversation over. That's what I've realized in my old age.
dmb says:
I wish we could be so fancy and advance that we'd be talking about principles
of interpretation and the finer rules of the game. Sadly, some people don't see
that they are violating the most basic standards of that game. What if I said,
for example, that free will and determinism are not about the presence or
absence of choice? Or what if I said, Pirsig doesn't even talk about moral
responsibility anywhere, that he's not interested in the praise and blame game?
Or what if I said that the notion of moral responsibility is in no way
predicated on free will? Do you see any violations of the basic standards here?
Don't you think I'd have to be using the key terms improperly to say such
things? Those are statements that I pulled from Steve's posts. As I see it,
Steve's position can be defeated by simply quoting the dictionary. I know he's
your pal and all that, but how is this anything other than pure drivel? It's
nonsense and yet he's hanging on to it with white-knuckled tenacity. I would
have thought that even a friend would be disturbed by it. No, especially a
friend. Friends don't let friends drive drunk and by the same token friends
don't let friends derive junk. Take his keys, Matt. He needs you right now. Am
I not my brother's bartender?
determinism |diˈtərməˌnizəm|noun Philosophythe doctrine that all events,
including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the
will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human
beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their
actions.
free willnounthe power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;
the ability to act at one's own discretion.
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
