[MD] humpty dumpty

[118]

Hi dmb,

Why does Pirsig think it is important to bring in a social level when creating a metaphysics based on Quality?

Is there an alternative approach that would deliver the same message about Quality?

Perhaps you dealt with this in you dissertation.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:41 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Dave Thomas said to dmb:
> 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. 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Huh?
> Evade the question, which was the idea of rationality as a cage? If you're asking why he uses the word cage, it's simply a picture of the original meaning of the word in Latin. "Fin" means end or limit so that "de-fin" means to set bounds or put limits, like a fence or walls or the bars of a cage. That's just the history and etymology of the word, which isn't really a philosophical issue. It's just what we see in the dictionaries and such. It's just the definition of "definition". So what's your question?  
> 
> Dave Thomas said:
> ...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.
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Oh, that old problem again. I don't know what to tell you, Dave. I think the meaning of those terms ("social" and "intellectual" is as clear as any other meaning. I realize that some folks around here have found the difference to be perplexing but some folks are just easily perplexed and, at this point, I have no sympathy for your confusion. 
> Why can't the MOQ's "social" level be extended to animal groups? Because that just not what Pirsig is referring when he uses it. He's talking about human society, our social values. The fact that the word can also be used more broadly in other contexts simply isn't a problem. I've always thought that asking questions about the meaning of "intellect" in a philosophy discussion was a lot like walking a mile and then asking what legs are. It's preposterous and silly. 
> If I refer to the intelligence among a congress of baboons, will you ask me to prove the electoral results that got those apes elected? No, because everyone should understand that the analogy is not supposed to be taken literally and that question would only makes sense as a rather lame joke. 
> 
> 
>                         
> 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/md/archives.html