> [David] > Of course, some logic is better than others - and of course what I deem to be > logical - others do not - and vice versa. But that doesn't, as you seem to > suggest, immediately imply that we devolve into a whole bunch of relative > truths and 'own logics'. Why is that? Because logic is based on values and > value is universal and thus so is the quality of one logic over another. > > [Arlo] > You seem to be suggesting that some disagreements about logic are just > personal differences in how we define "logic", while others are more clear > about which argument is 'more logical' is universal. And I'm still not sure > if, given this description, anything can be "not logical", and how you would > arrive at that. Isn't intellectual quality, like coherence and the other > values mentioned by Pirsig, the arbiter not just more "more logical" but of > "illogical" as well?
[David] I'll try and speak in dot logical points to try and make this as clear as possible.. Two main points **Main point 1.** Like all intellectual values - what we deem logical or illogical is culturally derived. To the extent that we are each our own values - we will each have our own sense of what is and is not 'logical'. Regardless of this - that doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade and call intellectual values logical or illogical. In other words - even though intellectual values are built upon from the culture in which they are derived - they are still very much their own *valuable* thing. **Main point 2.** Marsha isn't part of some entirely separate culture (as dmb points out) so we can at least understand what she is saying (even if it isn't necessarily any good) . On this point - Marsha is actually using the MOQ in her thinking. While I don't think that what Marsha is saying is very logical - it does have some amount of logic to it as she is applying *some* small amount of the MOQ in her thinking. That's why I think it's important that we call that small amount logical and everything else illogical - rather than just all of it illogical. Is that clearer? > [David] > To state the obvious - if dmb and I (for instance) think that Marsha is being > illogical - that doesn't mean that to Marsha - she is being illogical or > (for instance) that if you were to value the same thing which Marsha does - > that you are being illogical > > [Arlo] > Marsha can think she's a leprechaun, but that does not make her one. We are > not talking about self-definitions like this, but of an evaluation based on > evidencing intellectual quality. I might like the idea that "2+2=cat", and if > I wanted to stand on a street corner and shout that at the top of my lungs, > maybe I have that right, but if I walk into a mathematics forum I better be > able to do more than shout the same ridiculous thing over and over and > condemn everyone who demands a rational thesis to support my claim. > > But this gets back to purpose, are we upholding any intellectual values to > the discourse here? Should we expect contributors be held to intellectual > standards? If so, how? If not, are we still a philosophy group or should we > drop that designation? [David] Well as said in my post to dmb. I think that what's important to Marsha is what is before intellectual values - Dynamic Quality. What we do about that is, I think, open to discussion. > [David] > Disagreements about the MOQ aren't so much about what is and isn't logical - > but about what does and does not have value. > > [Arlo] > But, David, "logical" IS an intellectual value. You make it sounds like logic > and value are somehow intellectual unrelated. > > Unless what you mean is that something can have no intellectual value but > still hold some social value. Sure. Of course, but that brings us back to the > role that intellectual quality plays in this forum. Sure, some people might > affix their beliefs for egoist or comfort reasons, and these have 'value' to > that person based on these non-intellectual values, but again this gets to > the purpose of the forum. Do we call that out? Ignore it? Do we respond to it > every fifth time? Every tenth? Or not at all? [David] Not social value. I think above all else Marsha values DQ. DQ is also outside of intellectual value and logic. Please read my post to dmb to see an in-depth post about what Marsha *values* and where her *logic* on this is wrong. 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
