[MD] QRE: The 4th. level's two interpretations. Par

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Ron,

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
>
> Steve:
>
> I don't see any important difference between these two terms other
> than that one is an adjective and the other a noun. Can you explain
> what you see as important?
>
> In dictionary.com I find:
>
> ra⋅tion⋅al  /ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/
> –adjective 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational
> plan for economic development.
>
> I think when we say an explanation is reasonable or rational, we are
> saying that it has a sort of quality--intellectual quality. If someone
> attempts to give reasons, whether or not the reasons are good ones,
> that person is participating in intellectual patterning. The
> intellectual patterns in question may be of higher or lower quality,
> but reasoning is always a synonym for participating in intellectual
> patterns as I understand the MOQ.
>
> Ron:
> I tend to agree with your view, In my reading of the distinction "reason"
> is a cognitive ability while "rational" is a system of reason. To be "rational"
> is to be unemotional and objective.

Steve:
Right. The admonishment "be reasonable" is to say that evaluating the
truth of a proposition, one should let the fact they they are hungry
(or biological values in general) or the fact that the cool kids
believe it (or social quality in general) affect a determination of
intellectual quality. The only thing that the MOQ has a problem with
here is the SOM notion that all values can be disregarded in such an
evaluation. It is only biological and social quality that are
irrelevant to reason. Intellectual values and DQ alone are of issue in
such an evaluation.


Ron:
> I suppose what I'm getting at is the idea of the myth of  the"rational"
> thought, how, in our modern use of terms they co-mingle and conflaguate
> meaning, making the lines between the ability to think and a system of
> thought blurred. In other words, to sum up the MoQ stance, that western
> cultures rational is the flaw in it's reason.

Steve:
That's something like the Ghost of Reason that Phaedrus gave a good
thrashing to. Rational thought is an value-laden as anything else.
Pirsig showed how irrational it is to think otherwise.

But I don't think of "rational" as a particular system of thought. I
think of logic that way. I just think of rational as a compliment we
pay to explanations we think are good. But I know what you mean about
"the myth of reason" which takes Reason as an essence to be a nonhuman
value-free power that can be appealed to to settle disputes and that
we have a duty to coform to. The MOQ denies the existence of such an
esence.

Best,
Steve