dmb said to Marsha:
...But the question remains and the answer is totally obvious; are logical
contradictions bad or not? Yes, of course they are. And given the context, your
contradictory use of the MOQ's key terms in a MOQ discussion group, that
particular contradiction is very, very bad.
Marsha replied:
To David Harding you wrote "logical contradictions", so I thought you were
addressing the law of non-contradiction. But if not, on what basis do you find
contradiction?
dmb says:
Logically consistency is not the exclusive property of subject-object
metaphysics and one need not subscribe to Plato's or Aristotle's way of
thinking either. Even after rejecting SOM and replacing it with a completely
different metaphysics, Pirsig still thinks that proper definitions and logical
consistency are necessary and important standards for intellectual quality.
Pirsig says in chapter 8 of Lila:"The tests of truth are logical consistency,
agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. The MOQ satisfies
these."
At the end of chapter 29 he says:"The MOQ also says that DQ - the value-force
that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a
brilliant experiment of a confusing, inconclusive one - is another matter
altogether. ...Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting
edge of scientific progress itself."
This the second quote also shows that intellectual quality and DQ are NOT
mutually exclusive. Pirsig's expansion of rationality incorporates and formally
recognizes DQ in the operations of intellect and in the scientific method. That
is also what distinguishes dialectic from rhetoric. The dialecticians think
they are talking about reality itself and the universal laws of logic which
correspond to that determinate reality. The rhetorician knows he's only talking
about analogies.
Buddhism is also provides you no excuse to speak so badly and inconsistently.
The Buddha himself, apparently, thought words should be tested and examined and
the Dali Lama thinks logical inconsistency is downright TABOO!
the Buddha said:"Just as the wise accept gold after testing it by heating,
cutting and rubbing it, so are my words to be accepted after examining them,
but not out of respect for me."
As the Dali Lama said:"A general stance of Buddhism is that it is inappropriate
to hold a view that is logically inconsistent. This is taboo. But even more
taboo than holding a view that is logically inconsistent is holding a view that
goes against direct experience."
Traleg Rinpoche:
"In the Buddha's early discourses on the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold
Path begins with the cultivation of the correct view...Without a conceptual
framework, meditative experiences would be totally incomprehensible. What we
experience in meditation has to be properly interpreted, and its
significance-or lack thereof-has to be understood. This interpretive act
requires appropriate conceptual categories and the correct use of those
categories... .While we are often told that meditation is about emptying the
mind, that it is the discursive, agitated thoughts of our mind that keeps us
trapped in false appearances, meditative experiences are in fact impossible
without the use of conceptual formulations... ."
But you've heard all this before. You've this evidence already.
Shall I expect the same old pattern? You've ask a question and received a
serious answer. Isn't this where you declare how much you don't care about the
answer or find some way to dismiss it and thereby evade the substance of the
matter?
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
