[MD] humpty dumpty

[David Thomas]

On 8/2/12 3:48 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Thomas said:
> 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.
>  
> dmb says:
> Words are SUPPOSED to be definable. To say that Quality cannot be defined is
> to say that Quality can't be caged. I think it's a huge mistake, however, to
> construe this as a condemnation of words and definitions. We need the meaning
> of words to be limited, otherwise they're quite useless. Without definitions,
> you can't do metaphysics or any other kind of thinking.

[Dave]
You agree words have to have definitions or you can't do metaphysics. Then
just like Pirsig above evade the question which was "the idea of reason and
rationality (SQ both) as a cage" not why Quality should not be caged.  But
clearly if you don't cage "intellectual" with a definition then you don't do
metaphysics. For example if you handle this way:

> A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence
> over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of
> evolution than social patterns of value. Just as it is more moral for a doctor
> to kill a germ than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill a
> society than it is for a society to kill an idea² Lila pg 77

[Dave]
>From this how can you not help but conclude "ideas" are intellectual
patterns? All ideas?  Does anybody really believe that?
Another possibility is mystical revelation. With the "mystical" being the
highest insight humanly possible into reality, I think Pirsig might suggest
(given his help and support of Ant's thesis) that a Zen Buddhist monk will
always have a better, a morally superior, understanding of reality than any
intellectual. So in this way (Marsha's way) he could be considered
"anti-intellectual." From dmb's static POV he's an ubber-intellectual. You's
make your pick and you's take your chances.

But down here out of the clouds of mystic reality on the static levels where
a majority of all mortals live ill defined "intellectual" is king and ill
defined "social" is queen. And chaos reins supreme.

Dave