Glove-
You wrote:
"what is logical is also what is culturally acceptable.
something that is not culturally acceptable is illogical."
I think this is a rather specialized use of the term "Logical". In this
case, what is "logical" is culurally acceptable simply because it is
culturally acceptable (i.e. logical = culturally acceptable). This is not
the same meaning of "Logical" when we refer to "Aristotealian" style logic
(I know some people hate calling this Aristotealian, but it's just so you
know what I'm refering to). Real logic is formalized rules for maintaing
consistency in thought. After all, it wasn't culturally acceptable in
Europe once to say that the Earth is round or that it revolves around the
sun, but these conclusions are still "logical". In fact, I would say in
those days it was simply culturally inaccpetable to use logic. Religion
was the basis for truth, not logic. Logic transends culture and is the
same no matter where or when you use it.... I think.
As for this:
"the intellect level = transcendental Dynamic destruction of logic"
I would very much appreciate if you would expand on this.
It's all good,
Rick
At 04:18 PM 11/18/98 -0600, you wrote:
>hello everyone
>
>Donny wrote:
>
>I tend to agree w/ Glove
>that the S-O split is primarily social.
>
>Donny, this is a good starting place for agreement.
>
>Donny wrote:
>
>I think this ability to
>distinguish between person and non-person/mere thing is what gave rise to
>society out of BioPoVs. I've suggested this schema to help straighten
>things out:
>Bio = Object-consciousness (can distinguish between I and This, me and
>not-me) NOTE: not all organisms possess O-con.
>Soc = Subject-Object Consctiosness (distinguish between a person and a
>non-person or an impared/stigmatized person like an ex-con or mental
>patient, or Finton [just kidding])
>Int = S-O logic (this is a set of rules for how to analytically cut-up
>reality w/ your scalple and divide it into hierarchys [see ZMM])
>
>And, I'll also state for the record that (being the most
>multicultural person I know) I'm not yet totally comfertable resigning
>InTPoVs to the "Western European tradition as innherated from Greece."
>
>my comments:
>
>Donny, you started out agreeing with me but ended up back at the same static
>place. how can seeing logic as the intellect lead to freedom for the
>individual? logic is just another static social pattern of value. logic is a
>socially instilled value learned by interaction with others and with the
>environment. what is logical is also what is culturally acceptable.
>something that is not culturally acceptable is illogical.
>
>look at Pirsigs analogy about the saint and his/her relationship with
>Dynamic Quality. it was perhaps not an apt analogy because we can have no
>direct relationship with Dynamic Quality. statically latched social patterns
>of value can only approach Dynamic freedom thru the intellect. the moral
>force of value in the intellect is in conflict with the established social
>morals and the social establishment senses this and it makes for uneasiness.
>
>Dynamic Quality is only experienced thru the four static quality level
>patterns of value. it seems to me that what Pirsig was really talking about
>was the intellect at work in the saint and not Dynamic Quality experienced
>directly. therefore:
>
>the social level = construction of subject/object logic
>
>the intellect level = transcendental Dynamic destruction of logic
>
>best wishes to all,
>
>glove
>
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Jaynes.html
>Force of Values in the Metaphysics of Quality
>http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Bohr.html
>Quality is a "Good" Dog; Pirsig and Castaneda Compared
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST