Hi Marsha and Joe --
On 9/5/11 5:50 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote:
Greetings,
Has anyone considered that that which is labled 'common sense'
and 'logical' are social static patterns of value? Geez...
[Joe]:
IMHO when you view 'common sense' and 'logical' you are
viewing DQ emotions and SQ Intellect. I may wonder at a
concept of the indefinable, but emotions seems to cover it.
Possibly what I have to say more properly falls under DMB's "Taking Words
Seriously" thread. But isn't this manner of reasoning an example of what
the logicians call "the fallacy of an undistributed middle"? As a
syllogism, it would read like this:
1. Emotions are indefinable.
2. DQ is indefinable
.: .3. DQ is emotions.
Because you haven't qualified the middle premise, you lead to a false
conclusion; namely, that because emotions (like DQ) are indefinable, then DQ
must be emotions. And inasmuch as Pirsig has posited DQ as his fundamental
reality, the implication is that reality is nothing but emotions. Is this
what we are to believe the Metaphysics of Quality ultimately boils down to?
It's ill-conceived at best to define Quality (a subjective evaluation of
experience) as the indefinable essence of Reality; to now suggest that
Quality equates to "emotions" is a 'reductio ad absurdum'. Joe, as our
resident logician here, I'm surprised that you would want to place us in the
horns of a dilemma.
A while back, acknowledging that "MoQ is ontologically indeterminate",
Marsha asked me if I could offer justification for Essentialism that is
empirically or philosophically stronger. I didn't answer at the time
because it appeared to be a rhetorical question. However, since the true
nature of Reality is implicated in this discussion, I'll go on record with
the following statement:
NOTHING can exist -- not Evolution or its "levels", not the material
universe, not Quality or the emotions, not Intellect or Experience, not even
the conscious Self -- in the absence of a Primary Source. I cite as my
logic for this premise the 'ex nihilo nihil fit' proposition of classical
philosophy, the empirical precept of 'first cause', and the metaphysical
principle that Heidegger formulated in the question "Why are there beings
rather than nothing?"
Thanks to you both for giving me a reason to engage in this discussion.
Essentially speaking,
Ham
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
