On Aug 11, 2012, at 3:09 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
What type of "intellectual reason" are you requesting? Can I present an
intellectual reason why faeries have little value for me? Can I present an
intellectual reason why God has little value for me? Little value is little
value. What kind of "intellectual reason" would satisfy 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?
Since without static patterns I would be zombie, I value 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?
I thought the definition you provided was too general, but I will repeat reason
and logic can be useful tools in a formal sense or common sense in an informal
sense. Are they other than patterns of thought (static quality)?
>>>>> 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"?
I've never heard of considering an adjective a loose noun. A pattern, though,
is considered a noun, and they are much easier to kill 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?
That's quite a leap in topics. - The MoQ does challenge the status quo (static
(patterned) thinking), and that might make it appealing to a skeptic.
"While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns.
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served."
And moral to boot. :-)
> 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
