Hi Marsha, I ask questions because I am interested...
>>>> 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. > Okay. > > >>>> 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. Right. Value first, oaths and reasons for those oaths later. Can you come up with intellectual reasons why the term 'absolute' has little value to you? >> 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! You value Dynamic Quality. That's good. What about static quality? >>>> "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. I'm confused.. You first asked me for a definition of the words I was using because you couldn't understand them in their context without a definition, and now I've offered a definition and you're complaining about context? >>>> 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. Isn't an adjective a 'loose' noun? Why does Pirsig explicitly say "noun rather than an adjective"? >>>> 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. William Poundstone is a skeptic. Do you think the MOQ is for skeptics? Thanks, -David. 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
