[MD] philosophology

[Ian Glendinning]

Just two points inserted in response dmb, since these are all repeats of
old exchanges .... more argument for the sake of disagreement.

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:36 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> What!? We only have SOMist language? Are you saying that the rejection of
> SOM also entails an opposition to any rational definitions and conclusions?
> You don't think that intellect or philosophy should be constrained by logic?
>

[Ian] No, not opposition to it. Logic is itself a set of constraints, but
we should not be constrained to arguments where logical relations between
objects (spv's) are our ONLY tools. I'm rejecting a narrow definition of
intellect defined only by logic.

>
> Pirsig says his central aim is to show how "RATIONALITY can be
> tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through a
> formal recognition of Quality in its operation." (ZAMM 278, emphasis is
> mine)  It's not just a new philosophy, he says, it's "even broader than
> that - new form of spiritual RATIONALITY". (ZAMM 358, emphasis is Pirsig's)
> "He did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was reason." (ZAMM
> 257)
> "Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other"
> (ZAMM 358) back in the days of Plato. "It's been necessary since before the
> time of Socrates to reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the
> rational mind for an understanding of nature's order", Pirsig says, but now
> it's time for "reassimilating those passions which were originally fled
> from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's
> consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. The central part." (ZAMM
> 294)
>
> Do NOT confuse the disease with the patient. SOM is the disease. Intellect
> is the patient who needs to be healed, not the disease that needs to be
> destroyed.
>

[Ian] Yes, good selection of quotes, we completely agree, I'm not confusing
the patient with the disease - in fact I am strenuously pointing out the
distinction - as you are. We are expanding intellect by adding "quality"
considerations to it.  (How many times must I also have said that to Bo
?!?). BUT, those "quality" considerations do not all lend themselves to
objective logic - algebraic language about "objects". Logical rationality
and definitions are indeed the "foundation" for the expanded intellect -
but not the whole of it - we need to build the extensions above it. (You'll
have seen my attempts to characterise the intellectual level in two layers
- the GOF SOMist intellect emerging above the Social level, with a MoQish
intellect emerging with & above the SOMist.)

(About Marsha ? She just like to prick our intellects with alternative
views. She can speak for herself, but I'd say she's not "rejecting"
intellect just saying - "look, there's more".)

Ian