Well yes but you are conflating the concept of house with two different instances - both examples of the same house conception.
Sincw the everyday conception of intellect seems to hang on rational objectivity, it is important to notice when we are using the term with the MoQish expanded definition - until it becomes accepted as part of the everyday conception. ie we agree Ian On 10 Mar 2013 14:19, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ian had said: > But the reason (SOMist intellectual artefact) at the start of your > piece is a different "reason" entirely from the expanded reason at the > end ... despite you (and I) happily using the same word. > > Ron: > If we take the term as a generalization for that act and ability to > criticaly think, > (which I believe is how the term is commonly used) then that distinction > is secondary > within the context of my arguement of whether or not Quality or Tao is > benefited > by that ability (to reason) critically. > > The form of reason known as SOM esoterically by our own circle, > objectivism, physicalism > if you will, that whole cultural assumptive attitude towards everyday > life, appears to be reason > and an aweful lot of folks take it to be so, but once we take a close look > at what exactly > those reasons are for our beliefs we find that it is often built on > inaccurate assumptions. > > If we expand a house, it still fits the description and meaning of that > term "house" in the genera > of that term although it's particulars may change in experience rendering > it more useful (better) > or less. > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > [Robert Pirsig] > > I think, furthermore, that all his metaphysical mountain climbing did > > absolutely nothing to further either our understanding of what Quality > is or > > of what the Tao is. Not a thing. > > That sounds like an overwhelming rejection of what he thought and said, > but > > it isn't. I think it's a statement he would have agreed with himself, > since > > any description of Quality is a kind of definition and must therefore > fall > > short of its mark. I think he might even have said that statements of the > > kind he had made, which fall short of their mark, are even worse than no > > statement at all, since they can be easily mistaken for truth and thus > > retard an understanding of Quality. > > No, he did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was reason. He > > showed a way by which reason may be expanded to include elements that > have > > previously been unassimilable and thus have been considered irrational. > > > > [Krimel] > > Notice that refrain? Yet some are convinced that after doing nothing for > the > > Tao in his first book, Pirsig wrote a second to demolish it. > > > > I think not. I think he proceeds in order to benefit reason, or as James > > would put it conceptualization. That is, chopping the world into > measurable > > parts. But he reiterates in Lila no metaphysics can to anything for the > Tao. > > Not a thing. > > > > As he points out we are overwhelmed by "irrational elements crying for > > assimilation." This is an important point amplified by Dan Ariely and the > > behavioral economists. We are at our core irrational. But irrational does > > not mean incoherent or even incorrect. It means other than rational; > > nonalgorithic. We do not navigate our lives with reason. Reason itself > > emerges as an artifact, as a technique, as a process for assimilating the > > irrational. But reason does nothing for the Tao, or for Quality. Not a > > thing. > > > > [Ron sez] > > I have to disagree with that and here is why: > > Although reason is indeed an artifact and comes posterior in experience > it is also > > helpful to see it as an evolutionary extension in the navigation of our > lives. reason > > improves our lives, it makes them better. Therefore it most certainly > improves > > the tao. > > Rendering the unintelligible intelligible was considered the operation > of the divine > > by the ancient Greeks and infered (to them) a hint at the nature of the > dynamic. > > The arguement was not about if something "is" or "is not" but rather > what held > > the most meaning in experience. > > > > The question to ask, when we inquire into whether or not reason does > anything > > for Quality is this: What does it mean to live a "good" life? > > > > In the end I think this becomes the point and conclusion of Pirsigs aim, > he improves > > Quality by expanding and clarifying reason. Or why else get involved. > > > > > > > > > > .. > > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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
