hello everyone
Rick wrote:
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.
Rick, i see what you are getting at, but i disagree when you say logic
transcends culture. remember when Pirsig said that if Descartes had said "I
exist in 18th century French culture, therefore I am" that he would have
been correct? Aristolean logic could not be an intellectual outgrowth
because the intellect did not come to dominate the social level until very
recently, according to Pirsig. it must be a social level phenomena.
we may be eager to say, ok, logic is formalized rules for maintaining
consistency in thought. are they written down? is that what makes them
intellectual? why? what happens when cultures collide? all our rules of
logic depend implicitly upon knowing those rules before hand, kind of like
our participation here in the Lila Squad depends upon our having read Lila
and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
those rules of logic are social level functions designed to help us
communicate more efficiently. therefore Rick, i disagree with your
arguement.
best wishes
glove
P.S.
Rick wrote:
As for this:
"the intellect level = transcendental Dynamic destruction of logic"
I would very much appreciate if you would expand on this.
Rick, i just completed a paper on the force of value in the Metaphysics of
Quality which goes into more details on the idea of creation and
dis-creation as force of value. see the attached link to go there. its only
copyrighted by virtue of my sending it over the net, so feel free to use all
or any part of it and bend and twist it in any way you choose. even claim it
for your own should you choose to do so. like you said, its all good! :)
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST