From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 17:02:33 GMT
heads or tails opposites or on the same coin?
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> Scott,
>
> > Platt,
> > > I'll admit to having presuppositions because everyone does. I'll also
> > > admit to having a presupposition that philosophy and discussions about
> > > philosophy should be based on reason and logic, following Pirsig's
> > > definition of logic as "... a set of rules (i.e. an intellectual
> > > pattern) that helps produce high quality in other intellectual
> > > patterns." You on the other hand see logical rules, at least the
> > > Principle of Identity, as something that gets in the way of
> > > understanding, evidenced by your repeated appeal to the "logic of
> > > contradictory identity." Likewise, Matt is predisposed to ignore logic
> > > when it suits him because to argue on a strictly logical basis would
> > > admit to foundationalism.
> >
> > No. I see Aristotelian logic as a good logic to use when the subject
> > under discussion isn't deformed by it, but when it is, then some other
> > logic is required.
>
> You choose when it's OK to be rational and when it's not? It would be
> nice to know when you use logic and when you find it "deforming,"
> whatever that means.
>
> > Science (except quantum physics, for which there is
> > something called quantum logic) works well with Aristotelian logic, but
> > metaphysical questions in general do not.
>
> Pirsig has no problem in appealing to "logical consistency" when
> addressing metaphysical questions.
>
> >For example, when the issue
> > under discussion is "identity" or the "self", then the Principle of
> > Identity fails.
>
> How so? The Principle of Identity merely asserts that things cannot be
> and not be at the same time in the same respect. Is "self" both true
> and false simultaneously?
>
> > Nor is the use of logic, of any kind, tantamount to foundationalism.
>
> "Foundationalism--A term used in epistemology for theories of knowledge
> in which our knowledge of the "external" world is founded upon evidence
> provided by our senses." (Google glossary)
>
> "The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is call empiricism. It
> claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by
> thinking about what the senses provide." (Lila, chp 8)
>
> Putting two and two together, "logical consistency" and "evidence of
> the senses," the connection between foundationalism and logic is
> undeniable, at least as far as Pirsig is concerned.
>
> >We
> > find certain patterns of thought to be reasonable (how? no further
> > reason, just recognition of high quality intellectual value), and call
> > the abstract forms of those patterns logic, in those cases where we can
> > abstract the forms.
>
> I do not find irrational thought reasonable under any circumstances
> (quantum theory excepted.). Nor does Pirsig. ".... logic is a set of
> rules (i.e. an intellectual pattern) that helps produce high quality in
> other intellectual patterns."
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 17:36:48 GMT