Hi David,

When I say low value it means lacks significance.  Does that at least make more sense, common sense?  


Marsha





On Aug 11, 2012, at 4:18 AM, MarshaV wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 3:09 AM, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>>
>> I ask questions because I am interested...
>>
>>>>>> Thanks to the way reason and logic are taught currently, I'm sure it must be a negative attitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not understand this conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> I am confused by your confusion.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a cause and effect being presented that is too presumptuous.  
>>>
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> As you say, we are told they determine absolutes.  But is an absolute only a bad thing?  If you haven't read it already, Pirsig talks about the word extensively in the Copleston annotations.  Below are a couple of quotes..
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure how I came to believe that reason and logic determine absolutes?  I did not state that I was told, and I did not state that 'absolute' was bad.  It's a conventional term that has mostly lost it's value; at least for me it has little value.  
>>>>
>>>> Why does it have little value?
>>>
>>> Why must I have a reason why it has little value?  Doesn't value come first.  -   I see value as relative.  
>>
>> Right. Value first, oaths and reasons for those oaths later.  Can you come up with intellectual reasons why the term 'absolute' has little value to you?
>
> What type of "intellectual reason" are you requesting?  Can I present an intellectual reason why faeries have little value for me?  Can I present an intellectual reason why God has little value for me?  Little value is little value.  What kind of "intellectual reason" would satisfy you?  
>
>
>>>> Yes they are all four terms representing the indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.  This could be the same as 'transcendent' as well. However I like the term Dynamic Quality the best.
>>>
>>> I like what it points to better!
>>
>> You value Dynamic Quality. That's good.  What about static quality?
>
> Since without static patterns I would be zombie, I value static quality.
>
>
>>>>>> "The MOQ does not turn its back on the empiricist belief that the more we analyse, the closer we approach to truth.  Truth is the highest quality static intellectual pattern and analysis has shown over and over again historically that it improves the quality of intellectual patterns. The MOQ, however does agree with Bradley that Dynamic Quality, the Absolute, is not to be understood through analysis, since once it is analyzed it is no longer the Absolute."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind." - RMP
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So while you are correct to say that it is a mistaken belief that reason and logic determine absolutes(DQ).  They are not what you call a 'Holy Sieve'.  Reason and logic determine truth which according to Pirsig above - "is the highest quality static intellectual pattern".  
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, reason and logic can, and do, represent useful conventional tools in some circumstances, but they do have their limitations.  But of course you have not presented your definition of 'reason' and 'logic', so not knowing specifically what you are referring to I can easily be misunderstanding.  That was why I asked you to define the terms as you are using them.
>>>>
>>>> Well I did say that I was using both terms as per the dictionary:
>>>>
>>>> Reason:
>>>> "a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action."
>>>>
>>>> Logic:
>>>> "the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."
>>>
>>> Even presenting a definition can be tricky when it is ignoring context.  It makes a difference if you are pointing to "the highest quality static intellectual pattern" or "just thinking".  Context matters!  My advance degree was in Library Science.  I am less likely to confuse reference material with precise experience.  
>>
>> I'm confused.. You first asked me for a definition of the words I was using because you couldn't understand them in their context without a definition, and now I've offered a definition and you're complaining about context?
>
> I thought the definition you provided was too general, but I will repeat reason and logic can be useful tools in a formal sense or common sense in an informal sense.  Are they other than patterns of thought (static quality)?
>
>
>>>>>> So if we are only interested in DQ, reason and logic are not our thing.  But if we are interested in intellectual value they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested in reality, and I thought metaphysics was the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality.  So I am interested in what it means that 'reason' and 'logic' are static (patterned) value; I am not doubting that they represent value.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values." - RMP
>>>>
>>>> The Metaphysics of Quality is interested in reality. The MOQ is a metaphysics.  A metaphysics is a static quality, intellectual pattern of value.  The MOQ, as part of it's static structure, breaks reality into two.  DQ and static quality.  One is defined. The other is not.   If we try and define DQ, it is immediately sq and no longer DQ.  This is why good is a noun..
>>>>
>>>> ". Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is about.  Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it."  - Last sentence of Lila.
>>>
>>> And a noun is a static/conventional (relative) pattern.  I think here is where the Buddhist doctrine of two truths can be instructive.   Also, there is interconnectedness, maybe interdependence, which loosens up that conception of noun quite a bit, in my experience and understanding, at least.
>>
>> Isn't an adjective a 'loose' noun? Why does Pirsig explicitly say "noun rather than an adjective"?
>
> I've never heard of considering an adjective a loose noun.  A pattern, though, is considered a noun, and they are much easier to kill than an adjective. ;-)
>
>
>>>>>> Okay, I like ideas which are of value as well.  If they had of said the above at the start of your reason and logic class, and then proceeded to give the class exactly as they did, I wonder whether you would have disliked it so much?
>>>>>
>>>>> You presume too much when you suggest I dislike them.  The label 'Holy Sieve' refers to the holes (enigmas) that appeared.  They merely lost their exalted position.
>>>>
>>>> Which enigmas do you refer to?
>>>
>>> I've since that logic class also read many books on the deficiencies of "formal" logic.  My books are packed away, but the author William Poundstone comes to mind.  The enigmas are not mysterious.  
>>
>> William Poundstone is a skeptic.  Do you think the MOQ is for skeptics?
>
> That's quite a leap in topics. -  The MoQ does challenge the status quo (static (patterned) thinking), and that might make it appealing to a skeptic.    
>
> "While sustaining biological and social patterns
> Kill all intellectual patterns.
> Kill them completely
> And then follow Dynamic Quality
> And morality will be served."            
>
> And moral to boot.   :-)
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -David.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html



___


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html