From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Thu Dec 18 2003 - 23:43:18 GMT
Hi Bo, Paul,
Bo said:
>... SOLAQI says that intellect IS rationality - all of it -
> every last bit, and I repeat that it is the only definition that fits
> Pirsig's statement that 'intellect' was so obvious that he felt no
> need to define it. All dictionaries gives the definition as the
> power/capacity to reason .. in contrast to emotions and instincts.
> And what is reason other than distinguishing between subjective
> feelings and objective facts?
>
Paul said:
>> and that SOM is described [in the quotes provided]
>> as traditional, conventional rationality.
>
Bo said:
> Correct, but "...as traditional, conventional rationality"? Are there
> other kinds of rationality?
Steve:
Yes. Pirsig's pursuit of the ghost of reason was fruitful. He returned
with a rationality that could deal with values.
Pirsif Ch 19: "We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason. We
can now deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral arguments with
greater precision than before"
He may have been technically more correct to say that we are at last dealing
with reason on a basis of morals!
For example, Platt recently quoted the following in the "Tyrant" thread:
"That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts
say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an
original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil.
The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four parts: inorganic,
biological, and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, the ad hominem
argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt destroy the
intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social status.
In other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a
higher form. That is evil."
SOM-based rationality was unable to draw the logical conclusion that seems
so obvious once expained by Pirsig--that ad hominem attacks are not just
irrelevant but immoral. MOQ rationality, of course, provides the rational
conclusion that fits our experience.
Now, you (Bo) want to say that MOQ-rationality is a whole new species of
value that requires a distinct level of it's own. Such a new level is only
required, however, because MOQ-rationality the MOQ can't fit in the
intellectual level as you've defined it since it does not depend on subjects
and objects. Rebel patterns, SOLAQI, and a separate MOQ level are all ugly
solutions to a problem of your making. A better solution in my opinion
would have been to scratch your way of defining the intellectual level.
In other words, rather than create a whole new level, you could have instead
reasoned as Pirsig did that subjects and objects are patterns of value that
fit perfectly in the fourth level as characterized by manipulations of
abstract symbols that stand for patterns of experience.
Paul said:
>> I think this series of quotes
>> show that Pirsig conceived of the MOQ as a "root expansion" of
>> rationality and, as such, is also part of the intellectual level.
These quotes make it clear to me. Thanks for taking the time, Paul.
Thanks,
Steve
> ZMM is chiefly a reconstruction of Phaedrus' ideas plus an effort to
> construct a Quality Metaphysics - the MOQ took another
> seventeen years - and is truly a "root expansion", so deep-rooted
> that it expanded beyond intellect.
>
> There is nothing in the ZMM quotes I disagree with, let me just
> dwell on the LILA one.
>
>>> "The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection
>>> of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it
>>> is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science
>>> are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and
>>> social patterns.
>
> Yes, for instance this! Science is intellect, and science is
> RATIONALITY par excellance, it's my very point. If you say (that
> Pirsig says) that science is just ONE set of patterns I answer that
> there can't be any intellectual pattern that says that
> science/rationality is nonsense, all patterns of the same level must
> be in agreement.
>
>>> But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that
>>> Dynamic Quality - the value-force that chooses an elegant
>>> mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment
>>> over a confusing, inconclusive one-is another matter altogether.
>
> RATIONALITY is fully capable of choosing the most rational
> solution. I see DQ engaged in bigger tasks than meddling with
> what static value is supposed to handle.
>
>>> Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific
>>> truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try to
>>> suppress Dynamic Quality as it is for church authorities to suppress
>>> scientific method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It
>>> is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself."
>
> Here again science is representative for the intellectual level - of
> truth (which by default means objectivity). And it is also stressed
> that intellect suppresses all efforts to "expand beyond rationality".
> However, to present it as DQ is what keeps scientists from faking
> experiments is wrong, that's intellect's rationality keeping society's
> subjectivity in check!.
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 Dec 18 2003 - 23:43:35 GMT