Hi David,
On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:13 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > >> Ho David, > > I'll assume here you're saying hello rather than referring to me as a > prostitute… Oooops. No I do not think you are a prostitute. >>> 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. > > Patterns loose their life if I understand that everything is an analogy? > Patterns become ghosts if I understand that everything is an analogy? So is > it good or bad that everything is an analogy? I'm confused.. > >>> 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. > > Okay that's good. I agree. Hurray! >>> 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. > > I am confused by your confusion. There seems to be a cause and effect being presented that is too presumptuous. >>> 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. > > Why does it have little value? Why must I have a reason why it has little value? Doesn't value come first. - I see value as relative. >>> "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'? > > Yes they are all four terms representing the indivisible, undefinable and > unknowable. This could be the same as 'transcendent' as well. However I like > the term Dynamic Quality the best. I like what it points to better! >>> "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. > > Well I did say that I was using both terms as per the dictionary: > > Reason: > "a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action." > > Logic: > "the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge > or study." Even presenting a definition can be tricky when it is ignoring context. It makes a difference if you are pointing to "the highest quality static intellectual pattern" or "just thinking". Context matters! My advance degree was in Library Science. I am less likely to confuse reference material with precise experience. >>> 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 > > The Metaphysics of Quality is interested in reality. The MOQ is a > metaphysics. A metaphysics is a static quality, intellectual pattern of > value. The MOQ, as part of it's static structure, breaks reality into two. > DQ and static quality. One is defined. The other is not. If we try and > define DQ, it is immediately sq and no longer DQ. This is why good is a > noun.. > > ". Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality > is about. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or > anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of > Quality to a single sentence, that would be it." - Last sentence of Lila. And a noun is a static/conventional (relative) pattern. I think here is where the Buddhist doctrine of two truths can be instructive. Also, there is interconnectedness, maybe interdependence, which loosens up that conception of noun quite a bit, in my experience and understanding, at least. >>> 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. > > Which enigmas do you refer to? I've since that logic class also read many books on the deficiencies of "formal" logic. My books are packed away, but the author William Poundstone comes to mind. The enigmas are not mysterious. > Thanks, > > -David Thanks, 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
