[MD] logically incoherent

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha and Joe --

On 9/5/11 5:50 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Has anyone considered that that which is labled 'common sense'
> and 'logical' are social static patterns of value?   Geez...

[Joe]:
> IMHO when you view 'common sense' and 'logical' you are
> viewing DQ emotions and SQ Intellect.  I may wonder at a
> concept of the indefinable, but emotions seems to cover it.

Possibly what I have to say more properly falls under DMB's "Taking Words 
Seriously" thread.  But isn't this manner of reasoning an example of what 
the logicians call "the fallacy of an undistributed middle"?  As a 
syllogism, it would read like this:

    1. Emotions are indefinable.
    2. DQ is indefinable
.: .3. DQ is emotions.

Because you haven't qualified the middle premise, you lead to a false 
conclusion; namely, that because emotions (like DQ) are indefinable, then DQ 
must be emotions.  And inasmuch as Pirsig has posited DQ as his fundamental 
reality, the implication is that reality is nothing but emotions.  Is this 
what we are to believe the Metaphysics of Quality ultimately boils down to?

It's ill-conceived at best to define Quality (a subjective evaluation of 
experience) as the indefinable essence of Reality; to now suggest that 
Quality equates to "emotions" is a 'reductio ad absurdum'.  Joe, as our 
resident logician here, I'm surprised that you would want to place us in the 
horns of a dilemma.

A while back, acknowledging that "MoQ is ontologically indeterminate", 
Marsha asked me if I could offer justification for Essentialism that is 
empirically or philosophically stronger.  I didn't answer at the time 
because it appeared to be a rhetorical question.  However, since the true 
nature of Reality is implicated in this discussion, I'll go on record with 
the following statement:

NOTHING can exist -- not Evolution or its "levels", not the material 
universe, not Quality or the emotions, not Intellect or Experience, not even 
the conscious Self -- in the absence of a Primary Source.  I cite as my 
logic for this premise the 'ex nihilo nihil fit' proposition of classical 
philosophy, the empirical precept of  'first cause', and the metaphysical 
principle that Heidegger formulated in the question "Why are there beings 
rather than nothing?"

Thanks to you both for giving me a reason to engage in this discussion.

Essentially speaking,
Ham