dmb, On May 9, 2013, at 2:18 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Marsha: For you logical consistency seems to be whatever you think, since you have offered no basis on which to make a judgement. I suppose this is the problem with thinking truth is whatever is best for you. Btw, the article 'Laws of Thought' was a bit of a philosophic history the three major laws, and it did not even mention the Correspondence Theory of Truth. > 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." Marsha: I notice you did not deal with my actual explanation/definition of static patterns of value. You did not point out any inconsistency. My think my explanation is logically consistent, it demonstrates economy of explanation and above all it is in agreement with my experience. > 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. Marsha: So on what basis do you find my explanation/definition inconsistent? Here it is: --- Static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple events), conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. --- > 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? Marsha: I care that my explanation agrees with my experience; which it does. I find no substance in this post to support your allegation of 'inconsistency' concerning my actual explanation of static patterns of value. And what you _believe_ is bad doesn't work for me. Marsha 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
