Right Dave, Logic, reason and definition are meaning. And what is meaning But Quality. All bullshit aside. -Ron
. david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: >"Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." >(ZAMM 214.) > >"A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any >metaphysics." (Lila 64.) > >"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and >economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Qqulity satisfies these." (Lila, >chapter 8.) > > >Dan said: >.... Rationality and logic do not depend on subjects and objects. The MOQ >makes use of patterns of quality to interpret the world, expand rationality, >and improve logic. > >Ian replied: >OK, but you are now expanding the definition of logic as well as the >definition of rationality - a logic that is about more than objective >relations. (I'm more than OK with that.) ... I honestly still believe the >whole long-running argument is simply a SOMist language communication problem >- that we ALL share since Aristotle - particularly if we take the "critical" >stance with those we are arguing "against". Being more charitable I take a >more "fluid integrative" view of those I am debating "with". Critique against >- is inherently SOMist. Me vs other. > > >dmb says: >Your first victim was logic, Ian, and now you're saying that critique and >argument are inherently SOMist too? That is an especially absurd brand of >anti-intellectualism. I don't see any reason why the rejection of SOM should >also mean the rejection of logic, of criticism or making arguments. > >According to Pirsig, definitions are the foundation of reason, a metaphysics >much be definable and knowable, and the MOQ is supposed to be an economical, >empirically based, and logically consistent truth. None of these criteria are >rejected even after you've rejected SOM in favor of the MOQ. And that is what >we are here to discuss, hopefully in a logically consistent way. In this case, >of course, logic has nothing to do with the relations between objects >(whatever THAT means?), but rather the relations between terms. That's why >definitions become the foundation of reason, why we can't reason without them. > >To misuse the MOQ's central terms is to reason badly. It's really that simple. >If you equate opposed terms, you are being logically inconsistent. Thus my >complaints about Marsha's description of static patterns as ever-changing. >That's just nonsense in any language and regardless of one's metaphysical >assumptions. It's contradictory and so of course the consequence is to mess up >the MOQ. It's just bad thinking; words with no intellectual quality. It's not >very fancy or complicated. > >I know that Marsha would like to dismiss this criticism as just someone's >opinion or "interpretation", one she doesn't care about. And others would like >to dismiss it because they think it's just personal or too mean. But actual >content of this criticism has hardly been addressed and, as far as I can see, >stands undefeated. I really don't see how any reasonable person could deny >that it's simply contradictory to say that static patterns are ever-changing. > >"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the >Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic >tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about >does." > >It's really quite simple. Static patterns are so called because they are >stable while reality itself (Dynamic Quality) is ever-changing. Since >metaphysics must be definable and definitions are the foundation of reason, >isn't it totally fair and reasonable to ask that participants be logically >consistent in the use of these terms? C'mon, of course it is. It's so obvious >that I should even have to make an argument. Why would anyone join a >discussion group if they thought otherwise? Because they enjoy a babbling >tower of confusion so much more than an actual conversation about Pirsig's >philosophy? > > > > > > >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
