To cut a long story short, we continued offline to get round the 4 posts a day rule:
Arlo - Is Pirsig's MOQ coherent? Ian - Yes (The Metaphysics itself, emphatically, unequivocally, Yes). Ian - However the "expression" of his metaphysics (in his own words and those of the more expert readers) is less so. Arlo - What do you mean by "less so"? Ian - By less so, I'm saying it can never be entirely coherent. Some parts, very large parts, can be totally coherently expressed. Some parts can't, some must remain not amenable to totally coherent expression - in prosaic, logical language. Here poetic language gets closer, but can never overcome the actual gaps in coherence. Is a whole with parts with gaps in their coherence, incoherent? I'd say less than totally coherent. Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? Regards Ian On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > Hi Arlo, no thanks for not addressing the point ;-) but OK, inserted ... > > [Arlo] > I didn't think you made a point that warranted addressing, apart from > accusations of "SOMist intellectual perspective" that you hadn't defined. > But, okay, let's see what kind of 'addressing' I can give this. > > [Ian] > "In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns > .... one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - > valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern." > > [Arlo] > What is it you'd like me to address? You restated my evaluation of your posts > to express what you think better states your position. Okay. First, I'd say > you remain 'stuck' in viewing intellectual qualities like coherence and > precision as 'dogma' or 'SOMist', and you seem to equate "valid > argumentation" as something that 'restricts' intellectual quality. > > Given this, I am not sure what you THINK would evidence high quality > intellectual patterns, but I would still evaluate your position has stuck in > "intellect=SOM". This is why I jumped to your other point. Since you equate > 'coherence' and (now) 'valid argumentation' as SOMist (and over several > recent emails, as I pointed out), rather than as exemplars of high quality > intellectual patterns, I asked what you consider to be 'non-SOMist' > intellectual patterns. > > In other words, by regressing "dogma" back to even include a concept like > "coherence", you're moving into the same sort of vacuous nihilism that the > MOQ argues against. And I guess this hinges on this question. > > "Coherence" is an intellectual pattern, but is it an "SOMist intellectual > pattern"? If so, are you suggesting we redefine 'coherence', and how? Or, are > you suggesting that incoherent intellectual patterns are what the MOQ offers > to counter "SOMist intellect"? Or...? > > 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
