[MD] humpty dumpty

[David Thomas]

On 8/2/12 2:03 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote speaking of DMB:

> He has NEVER provided the MoQ definition of 'intellectual' so that I might
> thoughtfully explain my position or defend against the accusation of
> 'anti-intellectualism'. I also expect him to present evidence citing the exact
> statements, and posts they came from (to include the context), with an
> explanation of why they are anti-intelligent and nihilistic.   This he has not
> done
[Dave]
I think you had the lead on answering your own question when you posted
this:
> Marsha in a separate thread:
> DVD:  The MOQ at Oxford
> Section:  Church of Reason
> Approx. time:  01:30:00
>  
> Questioner:  This idea of reason and rationality as a cage in itself; in what
> sense can it be a cage?
>  
> RMP:  The cage itself is a definition.  The definition is a cage.  --- Latin
> phrase --- It's an old Aristotelian construction.  You set limits on what a
> word is.  You set limits on what your experience is.  And those limits which
> you set, in order that you can manipulate these words correctly, are also a
> cage for that word; they can't go beyond it one way or another.  One of the
> reasons we don't define Quality is because if we do we cage it and if you
> don't define it then all of a sudden the Quality spreads out all over the
> Universe, sort of speak.
>  
[Dave]
DMB cannot give you a Pirsig definition of "intellectual" because as Pirsig
indicates above definitions are cages. Neither could he give you a Pirsig
definition of "social", "organic", or "inorganic." RMP uses analogies,
examples, and context to suggest their meanings thus avoiding the trap
having to define the word or to tell you which definition of a word with
multiple meanings he's using.

No where does he use this more than when using the words, quality, values,
and morals. Quality has fourteen possible uses as a noun two as an
adjective, value - nine as a noun three as a verb, morals-five as a noun.
But he uses them interchangeably as though all of one words definitions are
synonyms of all the other words definitions. Which of course they're not. Oh
but they are in his system because of his axiom that "everything is
Quality." 

For example when asked about the social level he responded that it was
limited to humans. Reasoning, you got to stop it somewhere! Why?  If in
English speaking reality right now, the broadest and most common use of the
word is:

"The term SOCIAL refers to a characteristic of living organisms as applied
to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to the
interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective
co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and
irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social

Why would one arbitrarily limited it to humans with no real reason? Well
reason and rationality are a cage. It is much more creative, intuitive,
dynamic, and might I say convenient to divide things up to fit your theory
rather than to worry about fitting it to the nature of reality. The same
thing can be said about his creative split between social and intellectual.

Dave