Hi Marsha, >>>>>> 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?
I thought I made it pretty clear but I'll state it again. I would like an intellectual reason why the term 'absolute' has little value to you. Thank-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. What do you mean by zombie? You would literally suck the blood of other people, or something else? I'm confused. >>>>>> "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)? Okay, I agree with your explanation. I don't think they are anything other than 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. ;-) Why do you say that nouns are 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. :-) Okay. 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
