[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[John Carl]

dmb and Mary both leapt upon Krimel over his mythos/logos articulation.  I
wanna chime in myself.


Krimel said:
> ... the Mythos is just discarded Logos. Any explanation expressed in
> symbolic fashion is an intellectual pattern. Claiming that God created the
> universe in seven days for example is an intellectual pattern. At one time
> it was Logos. The fact that it gets replace by "better" ideas that assume
> the mantle of Logos does not mean that the pattern is any less an
> intellectual pattern.
>
>

I don't completely agree, Krimel. I'd rather say that  Logos is more a
species of Mythos than Mythos a form of discarded logic.

But with the assertion that at their roots they are both 4th level
phenomena, I agree completely.  With the assertion that the mythos is 3rd
level, and logos 4th, I disagree.

 Pirsig's avowed goal of uniting Art and Science, is this formulation of
mythos/logos.  And if it is the goal of the MoQ to unite them, how can any
MoQ acolyte say that they're completely estranged from one another?  Isn't
that assertion antithetical to the MoQ?  Mary?  dmb?





>
>
> Krimel said:
> Both Mythos and Logos are part of the collection of intellectual patterns.
> You are confusing the function of intellectual patterns on the one hand and
> the quality of the patterns on the other. If levels are sets of patterns,
> then the level has to include all of the patterns.
>
>
John:

Exactly right.



> dmb says:
>
> Well, no. The distinction is partly based on the fact that they function
> differently. When you read myths as myths rather than bad ideas, they are
> just as true as any true idea. To say myths are just bad ideas is like
> saying organisms are just bad myths. If you try to understand one in terms
> of the other, you'll fail to understand it for what it is. That's the
> problem with reductionism, see? It is a kind of category error.
>


John:

I think you misconstrue the essence of reductionism, dave, and you do it
quite often.  Explaining terms analogisically isn't a reduction, it's an
expansion.

Take Care,

J