Re: MD The Logic of Contradictory Identity

From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 16:56:52 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?"

    Hi Scott,
     
    >> I probably should have asked this a very long time ago that I could have
    >> understood your last 100 posts, but could you please explain what you mean
    >> by "the logic of contradictory identity"? Where does this term come from?

    > ...
    >The basic idea is that the only way to handle the basic words of
    > metaphysics, or religion, or psychology, is to treat them as poles in a
    > polarity, or -- same thing -- in contradictory identity. Each pole depends
    > totally on the other pole, and at the same time negates the other. So, for
    > example, the self is and is not the non-self. DQ and SQ are, in my opinion,
    > polar, or as Coleridge puts it, "two forces of one power", each determining
    > the other as each negates the other.
    ...
    > My reason for continually bringing it up in this forum is that I see
    > intellect -- normal everyday human intellect -- as our most immediate
    > exemplar of the L of CI. All that it produces is SQ, is finite, but the
    > producing of it is DQ. Thus it is, so to speak a microcosm of DQ/SQ tension,
    > and not, as Pirsig says, just SQ. So I want to scream NO when Pirsig
    > characterizes DQ as "pre-intellectual", and claims that intellect takes us
    > away from DQ. Instead, though it does take us away from the DQ involved in
    > what we perceive with our senses, it takes us toward DQ in the intellect
    > itself.

    Steve:
    Thanks for explaining. I pretty much agree with your last comments about
    difficulty with intellect taking us away from reality, which is how I would
    word the problem. I don't see a problem with thinking of intellect as
    "pre-intellectual" because I think we use the term intellect differently. I
    see intellect as a type of static pattern which must follow DQ as all
    patterns are created by DQ. But I also bristle when Platt interprets Pirsig
    to be saying that thinking takes us further from primary reality and
    thinking about thinking is even further. I don't see how we could ever be
    closer to or further from reality.

    Regards,
    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 16:57:01 GMT