[MD] grmbl

[MarshaV]

On Jun 4, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to Andre:
> I doubt that rhetoric and dialectic exclude rationality.  Where is your
> reference for the inclusion of rhetoric and dialectic in the Intellectual
> Level replacing rational analysis?  You may be correct, but I don't
> remember such an explanation.
> 
> Andre:
> I am not replacing anything!! (it is Bodvar who tries to do this) I am
> simply suggesting that dialectics and rhetoric, as a mode of enquiry
> belong at the intellectual level. I mean, if these two modes are not
> about a skilled manipulating symbols I don't know what is.
> 
> Mr. Pirsig described rhetoric as as form of 'mystic art' (ZMM p 145,
> my e-copy) and suggested on p185 that 'philosophical mysticism,
> the idea that truth is undefinable...has been with us since the
> beginning of history'.


Of course you are entitled to your own interpretation of the Intellectual Level.  
You'll work it out to suit you.  Hound Bo if it gives you pleasure, but your 
interpretation sounds like doublespeak to me.  You haven't produced any 
patterns that exclude rationality.  Nor have you produced any evidence that 
Mr. Pirsig designated rhetoric as an intellectual static pattern of value.

  

"It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) that a good rationale 
must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any 
process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be 
highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are 
not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal 
emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then 
the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

"It is quite evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying 
the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of 
scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this 
criterion, except perhaps a person with no effective feelings, for example an 
individual with a massively damaged Amygdala. Thus, such an idealized form 
of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars 
may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality  


> Thing is that at the intellectual level one can entertain two or three or dozens
> opposing or contradictory or affirming ways to handle the knife. I don't particularly
> care what you call them, be it logic, rational, irrational... whatever. The greater
> freedom which this level affords us, in comparison to the other levels is, I think i
> ndicative of the wonderful ways we have learned to adapt, interpret and deal with
> whatever we experience.

 Thing is that this is your opinion.  Not anything like the closest to RMP's MoQ. 

 

 Marsha


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___