Just two points inserted in response dmb, since these are all repeats of old exchanges .... more argument for the sake of disagreement.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:36 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > What!? We only have SOMist language? Are you saying that the rejection of > SOM also entails an opposition to any rational definitions and conclusions? > You don't think that intellect or philosophy should be constrained by logic? > [Ian] No, not opposition to it. Logic is itself a set of constraints, but we should not be constrained to arguments where logical relations between objects (spv's) are our ONLY tools. I'm rejecting a narrow definition of intellect defined only by logic. > > Pirsig says his central aim is to show how "RATIONALITY can be > tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through a > formal recognition of Quality in its operation." (ZAMM 278, emphasis is > mine) It's not just a new philosophy, he says, it's "even broader than > that - new form of spiritual RATIONALITY". (ZAMM 358, emphasis is Pirsig's) > "He did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was reason." (ZAMM > 257) > "Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other" > (ZAMM 358) back in the days of Plato. "It's been necessary since before the > time of Socrates to reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the > rational mind for an understanding of nature's order", Pirsig says, but now > it's time for "reassimilating those passions which were originally fled > from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's > consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. The central part." (ZAMM > 294) > > Do NOT confuse the disease with the patient. SOM is the disease. Intellect > is the patient who needs to be healed, not the disease that needs to be > destroyed. > [Ian] Yes, good selection of quotes, we completely agree, I'm not confusing the patient with the disease - in fact I am strenuously pointing out the distinction - as you are. We are expanding intellect by adding "quality" considerations to it. (How many times must I also have said that to Bo ?!?). BUT, those "quality" considerations do not all lend themselves to objective logic - algebraic language about "objects". Logical rationality and definitions are indeed the "foundation" for the expanded intellect - but not the whole of it - we need to build the extensions above it. (You'll have seen my attempts to characterise the intellectual level in two layers - the GOF SOMist intellect emerging above the Social level, with a MoQish intellect emerging with & above the SOMist.) (About Marsha ? She just like to prick our intellects with alternative views. She can speak for herself, but I'd say she's not "rejecting" intellect just saying - "look, there's more".) Ian 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
