JONATHAN BELIEVES THAT CENSORSHIP RULES CAN LEAD TO ABSURDITY,
RATIONALITY CAN BE TAKEN TO ABSURDITY, AND SOUL IS WHAT MAKES THE
DIFFERENCE
Dear Horse, and other dear souls,
First, let me apologise to Horse:
> > I wrote back to Horse asking him to reconsider
[his censoring of my LS post]
> > but he didn't respond.
Horse did indeed respond, and was perfectly polite.
Sorry for suggesting otherwise.
However, what angers me is that Horse asked me to remove a paragraph
from my post. I chose *NOT* to mutilate it (IMO) but to post it in
entirety to this uncensored forum. What should I have done Horse?
My post did indeed integrate elements of the MD and LS discussion
threads - quite deliberate. I understand Horse's approach to be that
this sort of integration is invalid, since the rules of etiquette he
favours for the MD/LS would make it impossible.
I OBJECT TO THAT VERY STRONGLY. It seems quite absurd.
Newcomer Lee Raiken (welcome Lee) already complained about this
"etiquette" discussion, so I am going to continue with something more
substantive by restating elements of my contentious post (the LS reject)
to illustrate the point. I was claiming that "SOUL" is an element that
distinguishes human thought and decision making from a computer
operation.
For a computer, one can state explicitly what the program does and what
data is put in.
Human thought is different because it contains both explicit conscious
factors, and also a whole slew of unconscious inputs.
I thought that the Dave/Ken argument on the atom bomb was an excellent
example, with Dave making a very "rational" analysis that Truman's
decision was based on a), b), c), and Ken saying that it wasn't like
that, and that Dave doesn't understand because he didn't experience the
WW2 atmosphere (the unconscious part) that led to the decision to bomb
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Ironically, in the atom bomb discussion we have "mystic" Dave behaving
like a priest of the Church of Reason, and "logical positivist" Ken
Clark taking an almost opposite position".
IMHO, Ken has the MoQ on his side. Ken is talking about the stuff that
the Church ignores.
(I apologise if my slanted summary misrepresents or offends anyone).
Contrary to what other people have indicated in this forum, I don't
believe that Pirsig really rejects reason, rationality or subject-object
thought. In ZAMM, Pirsig makes it clear that he goes along with this
mode of thinking and recognises its usefulness. However, Pirsig objects
(IMO) to the fact that our rationality doesn't recognise its own
limitations, and can thus let itself be taken to the ridiculous. The MoQ
is intended to provide a restraining framework.
I would be delighted to see some real follow-up on this issue.
Regards to all,
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST