[MD] Some historical perspective

Wed Oct 28 15:21:50 PDT 2009

Could have been worse, could have quoted
Wickedpedia, heh, heh.

Mark

On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:00:59 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
From:   MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Some historical perspective
Date:   October 28, 2009 5:00:59 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

You choice... 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:58 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Marsha,
I see no reason to honor your request.
However irrationational it may seem.
-Ron

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 7:54:07 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Ron,

My request is legitimate.  If you're going use the authority of quotes at
least include a source and location reference for them.  I have occasionally
forgotten too, but when asked I just supplied them.  

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:31 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Marsha,

how about this

you look up rationality and reason on your own

THEN tell me I'm projecting

and it's all just words and opinions

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 5:40:57 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Ron,

You use a lot of quotes in this post.  Where can I find the original text
for further understanding?  It would be helpful if you would add a reference
to you quotes, like whose they are...        

Marsha  

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:41 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Bo:

 I am disappointed with Pirsig's deviation 
from Phaedrus original idea of SOM=intellect which is what gives the 
MOQ its enormous explanatory power, while "orthodoxy" leaves it 
impotent.

Ron:
You keep repeating this statement but you never, not once,
explained how and why.....you never give reason.

Matt:
> Pirsig was doing a collage on a massive scale to try and find a
> pattern, but it is surely the wrong response to pull up the pattern
> from the collage, knock out a few pieces, encase it in lead, and hit
> everybody with it.  I don't know, maybe if it worked I'd feel
> differently, but the big fish Pirsig was after was Reason, and there's
> little reason to think in Pirsig, in ZMM or Lila, that that can easily
> be reduced to S/O differentiation. 
Bo:
If Reason don't mean "objective-over-subjective" what the heck is it? 
Phaedrus of ZAMM wanted to "... give Reason a good trashing" 
because it was the SOM that blocked his Quality Idea.  

Ron:
"Reason is the mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions 
from assumptions or premisses".-

Ron:SOM is a conclusion based on assumptions, reason is the ability to
perform
       this action.

"Reason in this sense is often contrasted with authority, intuition, 
emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith, and is thought by 
rationalists to be more reliable than these in discovering what 
is true or what is best. The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps 
to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of "reason" 
in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", rather than 
"reasoned" or "reasonable".

Ron:
Notice how the terms "reason" and "rational" have become conflagulated
So it seems "reason" is not what Pirsig was deriding but "rationality"

"In philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to 
analyze the data gathered through systematically gathered observations. 
In economics, sociology, and political science, a decision or situation 
is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals 
or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow 
optimally in pursuit of their goals. Thus one speaks, for example, of a 
rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. 
In this concept of "rationality", the individual's goals or motives are 
taken for granted and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise. 
Thus rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment, whatever 
those goals may be. Sometimes, in this context, rationality is equated with 
behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes 
rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a 
given situation."

Ron:
"Self interested to the point of being selfish" now THAT sounds like what
Pirsig was railing against "the individual's goals or motives are 
taken for granted and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise."
"the success of goal attainment" redefined  the Platonic
ideals of excellence, virtue as crafted wisdom. 

Rational, to be "measured". 

The flaw in Western cultures reason is it's rationality

.

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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/