From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 09:18:33 BST
Steve,
I see the point you're making about my style, but I think the point is
even simpler.
It clearly depends on lingustic degfinitions, but for me
"intuition" is just one part of "rationality"
- no and or either/or about it.
(In data modelling it's the classic sibling / parent problem - a
supertype "name" that is also commonly used for the dominant sub-type,
so another sub-type doesn't know if its relating to a sibling or a
parent - darned confusing if you don't know the context.)
At the parent level I have
Rationality = Reasoning = Understanding = Explanation = Knowing, etc.
Subtypes below that I have things like
Logic / Objective Empiricalism vs Intuitive vs many others ways of
describing experience and perception of many kinds.
(But ontologically, binary classification lets you down eventually - I
prefer Qubits - a bit of both at the same time - have your cake and
eat it - choose your metaphor.)
Ian
On 4/27/05, Steve & Oxsana Marquis <marquis@nccn.net> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> ___________________
>
> I reject your statement that "rigorous rationality separates rationality
> itself from the 'objects' of rationality". One can start with the example of
> mathematics, where the "object" is the reasoning. The main thing in
> applying "rigorous rationalism" is to reason oneself out of believing that
> the objects of reason have an independent self-existence -- the same with
> the reasoner. It is the assumption (SOM) that reason *must* be in
> subject/object form that leads to the intuitionist view of Zen, and which is
> followed in the MOQ.
> __________________
>
> Hi Scott. We could around and around a while and I bet what we have is just
> misunderstanding, not significant differences. I understand your point that
> this method is attempting to get rid of the belief that objects of reason
> (and the reasoner) have independent existence. For now you have confirmed my
> suspicion.
>
> Ian wrote:
> ____________
>
> Zen / Pirsigian MoQ, is not a matter of rejecting rationality, it's a
> matter of rejecting "logical-positivism" (or similar) as the only
> valid kind of rationality.
>
> So rather than a "Flight From Reason",
> we have a "Flight To New Reason"
> _____________
>
> Yes, logical positivism, the dogma of the archaic Church of Reason. I
> certainly concur. So, in keeping with your habit of rejecting either / or
> distinctions its rationality AND intuition, not rationality OR intuition.
>
> Live well,
> Steve
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 09:52:46 BST