[MD] Are theists irrational?

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian,  Andre, All. 

18 Jan.

    Pirsig to Turner ... 'What complicates all this discrimination 
    between intellectual and social thought are intellectual 
    patterns that are no longer intellectually valid but are 
    sustained by the social traditions that they created long ago. 
    Religious beliefs are in this class. Classical physics is in this 
    class. I think much of the opposition to the MOQ falls in this 
    class as well'  

Ian to Andre:
> Thank you for that - I've been banging at that message for so long ...
> "intellectual patterns that are no longer intellectually valid but are
> sustained by the social traditions that they created long ago" says it.
> There is some socially conventional "faith" in all real science,
> whatever the theory says. The last thing we want to do is agree an
> inrepretation of MoQ that ignores that. 

When latter-day Pirsig tries clear something up he tends to obscure 
it ever more. What goes for intellect must go for society and 
claiming that ...

 "social patterns no longer socially valid is sustained by the 
biological patterns they created long ago..."  

makes no sense. Ian's  "...There is some socially conventional 
"faith" in all real science, whatever the theory says." I would have 
liked to see an example of.  

Intellectual patterns no longer valid is simply looked upon as stages 
that leads to the present high standard. Absolutely horrendous is 
his claim that religious belief were once "intellectual", but stems 
from his "intellect as thinking" fallacy.  "Classical physics" (Greek 
physics) is no longer valid, but cannot be regarded as socially 
sustained. 

Andre had said:
> Of course!!! S/O logic has been superseded. It was based upon
> Aristotelian logic, used by Newton for scientific purposes and adopted by
> his friend John Locke who's philosophy is still visible and felt today
> (e.g the Americam Declaration, and the Constitution).

Yes. SOM has been superseded by the MOQ as ultimate reality, 
but the S/O distinction has not been abolished, rather relegated the 
role as MOQ's 4th. level. Much of Greek philosophy may no longer 
be taken seriously, even its basic subject/object matrix is 
superseded by the DQ/SQ one, but "statically" it is still most 
valuable - it's modernity itself - as Pirsig says in LILA democracy is 
an intellectual pattern.    

> However, science has moved on from these and discredited most of their
> assumptions. The huge influence of these two (and countless others) is
> still felt today because they are sustained by social traditions but their
> intellectual labours have become invalid!

I don't "approve" this. "Social" is something much more archaic and 
"dangerous" - no one fights for Aristotelian logic or Newtonian 
physics with ferocious devotion (like Al Qaida fights for Islam) it's all 
intellectual fencing no philosopher or physicist murder an 
antagonist.         

> The SOL/SOM idea has been relegated to and is sustained by the social
> level. The intellectual level is no longer dominated by Bodvar's
> 'intellect'. It is free from its tentacles. 

No comprendo!

> You little beauty! No wonder. It is still visible and audible everyday.
> It is all around us. But the intellectual level has moved on. Social
> change always takes a little longer (unless by force or revolution of
> course). 

I wish you weren't so easily swayed Andre. Intellect is a static level 
and will not move anywhere. It has been reduced from its former 
SOM position to MOQ's 4th. level, but people who has been up on 
MOQ's pinnacle and necessarily must returns to the static range 
will not longer be fooled by them.. We may speak about mind and 
matter, subject and object, but with a little reservation.     

> Some of you have probably been yawning all along saying yea, we knew
> all this already. Okay, so I am a bit slow! 

Not yawning, but I know Andre, push his belly button and  off he 
takes ;-)

Bodvar 

The Dutch boy who runs up and down the dyke to put straws in 
holes of un-moqish obfuscating.