Ho David,
On Aug 6, 2012, at 9:49 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > >>>>>>> Marsha wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "I will say only that I meant that it is ALL 'analogy all the way down' >>>>>>> and out, if you like. Yes, it is probably an overused aphorism, but I >>>>>>> still think it has value." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Taking into consideration that everything is an analogy - do you think >>>>>>> after accepting this, one should change anything about how they see the >>>>>>> world? >>>>>> >>>>>> Doesn't lol stand for 'lots of laughter'? Lol. Everything did change, >>>>>> but then "everything" is change, so to speak. >>>>> >>>>> Color me confused. Do you want me to be confused? >>>> >>>> I answered your question. If I didn't interpret your question properly >>>> sarcasm won't make it any clearer. And what do you mean by 'should'? >>>> That might be a better question? Who should? Little ole conventional >>>> me? Do we need to delve onto the topic of anatta once again? >>> >>> Okay, my apologies. I will be more precise and, rather than direct my >>> questions toward any sort of normative conclusions you may or may not have >>> derived from your experience, I will keep them directed towards your >>> personal experience only.. >> >> In understanding that "everything" is analogy, everything changes. All >> static patterns of value became transparent, some more than others, some >> disappear altogether. > > What do you mean by 'transparent'? Do you mean the dictionary definition of > transparent? Or something else? > > 1. > having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so > that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen. > 2. > admitting the passage of light through interstices. > 3. > so sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous. > > I can see how this property would apply to objects but how would such a > property apply to ideas? And if it does apply to ideas, how does that change > the meaning of those ideas? It is a metaphor. The patterns lose their substance; they lose their life, they become ghosts of their former selves. Does one need to fall back on the mind-matter categorization? It's all static quality whether if fall into the inorganic & biological levels or social & intellectual levels. >>>>>>> What of things like reason and logic? >>>>>> >>>>>> What of them? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Should these change in light of the fact that everything is an analogy >>>>>>> all the way down? >>>>>> >>>>>> My understanding of logic and reason had already changed after taking a >>>>>> class in formal logic. But generally, I still open the milk container >>>>>> before pouring milk into my coffee, I open the door before walking >>>>>> outside, and I still use cash, check or credit card when making a >>>>>> purchase. >>>>> >>>>> What is your understanding of reason and logic? Are they important? >>>> >>>> You originally presented the question, so you provide the definitions >>>> specific to your inquiry, otherwise check the dictionary. What do YOU >>>> mean by reason and logic? And conventionally important compared to what? >>>> If you are attempting to present a point of your own, just present it >>>> clearly and I'll consider it. >>> >>> I'm not attempting to present anything here.. Just asking you >>> philosophical questions.. This is a philosophical forum no? Can we not >>> ask one another questions on our philosophical views? >> >> Yes, and I did request your definition of reason and logic, but I do not see >> your philosophic answer courageously appearing in this post. > > My 'definition' of reason and logic is as it would appear in the dictionary. > An opinion I have of reason and logic, at your request, is offered below... > >>> So - back to my original line of enquiry - you mentioned that you attended >>> a class in formal logic - how did your opinion of logic and reason change >>> after that class? I.e. - what were your original views and what are they >>> now? >> >> Before the class, I thought reason and logic determined absolutes. After >> the class, I saw formal reason and logic more as a Holy Sieve. - I spent >> six months after that class intently eavesdropping on discussions, >> conversations and lectures, and found no one setting up syllogisms, or >> anything close. That would include university professors, by the way. I >> received my undergraduate degree from UCONN; it has a respectable >> reputation. - Today, I appreciate doubt; I attend to illusions, bubbles, >> shadows, dew drops and the lightning flash; I am overjoyed with not this, >> not that; and love, yes love, the idea that the world is nothing but value. > > You attend to illusions? I must say I don't like them very much.. An > illusion is a failing of the mind. I like things like reason and logic. > When I say, 'reason and logic'. Does that conjure a positive or negative > attitude in your mind? Neither. They may be useful when they work and useless when they don't work well. > Thanks to the way reason and logic are taught currently, I'm sure it must be > a negative attitude. I do not understand this conclusion. > As you say, we are told they determine absolutes. But is an absolute only a > bad thing? If you haven't read it already, Pirsig talks about the word > extensively in the Copleston annotations. Below are a couple of quotes.. I am not sure how I came to believe that reason and logic determine absolutes? I did not state that I was told, and I did not state that 'absolute' was bad. It's a conventional term that has mostly lost it's value; at least for me it has little value. > "Oneness, nothingness, Quality and Absolute are all referent terms for the > same thing." And what of 'referent term'? It's always interesting (and relative) where one draws the line, isn't it? If I offend one's static sensibility I might be accused of having boomeritis or being egotistical? - They are all words with multiple denotations and multiple connotations? But in the context of it being a RMP quote, I think he is pointing to all four terms representing the indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. Would that be the same as 'transcendental'? > "The MOQ does not turn its back on the empiricist belief that the more we > analyse, the closer we approach to truth. Truth is the highest quality > static intellectual pattern and analysis has shown over and over again > historically that it improves the quality of intellectual patterns. The MOQ, > however does agree with Bradley that Dynamic Quality, the Absolute, is not to > be understood through analysis, since once it is analyzed it is no longer the > Absolute." "Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind." - RMP > So while you are correct to say that it is a mistaken belief that reason and > logic determine absolutes(DQ). They are not what you call a 'Holy Sieve'. > Reason and logic determine truth which according to Pirsig above - "is the > highest quality static intellectual pattern". Sure, reason and logic can, and do, represent useful conventional tools in some circumstances, but they do have their limitations. But of course you have not presented your definition of 'reason' and 'logic', so not knowing specifically what you are referring to I can easily be misunderstanding. That was why I asked you to define the terms as you are using them. > So if we are only interested in DQ, reason and logic are not our thing. But > if we are interested in intellectual value they are. I am interested in reality, and I thought metaphysics was the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. So I am interested in what it means that 'reason' and 'logic' are static (patterned) value; I am not doubting that they represent 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." - RMP >> But this does not mean I reject intellectual patterns; I like the idea of >> examining "intellectual realities the same way one 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." (RMP, LILA, Chapter 8) > > Okay, I like ideas which are of value as well. If they had of said the above > at the start of your reason and logic class, and then proceeded to give the > class exactly as they did, I wonder whether you would have disliked it so > much? You presume too much when you suggest I dislike them. The label 'Holy Sieve' refers to the holes (enigmas) that appeared. They merely lost their exalted position. > Thanks, > > -David. Thank you. 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
