[MD] Intellectual Discussion and Dialectic - Finding agreement, Quality and beauty in the world.

[David Harding]

> [David]
> Of course, some logic is better than others - and of course what I deem to be logical - others do not - and vice versa. But that doesn't, as you seem to suggest, immediately imply that we devolve into a whole bunch of relative truths and 'own logics'. Why is that? Because logic is based on values and value is universal and thus so is the quality of one logic over another.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You seem to be suggesting that some disagreements about logic are just personal differences in how we define "logic", while others are more clear about which argument is 'more logical' is universal. And I'm still not sure if, given this description, anything can be "not logical", and how you would arrive at that. Isn't intellectual quality, like coherence and the other values mentioned by Pirsig, the arbiter not just more "more logical" but of "illogical" as well?

[David]
I'll try and speak in dot logical points to try and make this as clear as possible..

Two main points

**Main point 1.**

Like all intellectual values - what we deem logical or illogical is culturally derived.  

To the extent that we are each our own values - we will each have our own sense of what is and is not 'logical'.

Regardless of this - that doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade and call  intellectual values logical or illogical.  In other words - even though intellectual  values are built upon from the culture in which they are derived - they are still very much their own *valuable* thing.


**Main point 2.**

Marsha isn't part of some entirely separate culture (as dmb points out) so we can at least understand what she is saying (even if it isn't necessarily any good) .

On this point - Marsha is actually using the MOQ in her thinking.

While I don't think that what Marsha is saying is very logical - it does have some amount of logic to it as she is applying *some* small amount of the MOQ in her thinking.

That's why I think it's important that we call that small amount logical and everything else illogical - rather than just all of it illogical.

Is that clearer?

> [David]
> To state the obvious - if dmb and I (for instance) think that Marsha is being illogical -  that doesn't mean that to Marsha - she is being illogical or (for instance) that if you were to value the same thing which Marsha does - that you are being illogical
> 
> [Arlo]
> Marsha can think she's a leprechaun, but that does not make her one. We are not talking about self-definitions like this, but of an evaluation based on evidencing intellectual quality. I might like the idea that "2+2=cat", and if I wanted to stand on a street corner and shout that at the top of my lungs, maybe I have that right, but if I walk into a mathematics forum I better be able to do more than shout the same ridiculous thing over and over and condemn everyone who demands a rational thesis to support my claim.  
> 
> But this gets back to purpose, are we upholding any intellectual values to the discourse here? Should we expect contributors be held to intellectual standards? If so, how? If not, are we still a philosophy group or should we drop that designation?

[David]
Well as said in my post to dmb. I think that what's important to Marsha is what is before intellectual values - Dynamic Quality.   What we do about that is, I think, open to discussion.

> [David]
> Disagreements about the MOQ aren't so much about what is and isn't logical - but about what does and does not have value. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> But, David, "logical" IS an intellectual value. You make it sounds like logic and value are somehow intellectual unrelated. 
> 
> Unless what you mean is that something can have no intellectual value but still hold some social value. Sure. Of course, but that brings us back to the role that intellectual quality plays in this forum. Sure, some people might affix their beliefs for egoist or comfort reasons, and these have 'value' to that person based on these non-intellectual values, but again this gets to the purpose of the forum. Do we call that out? Ignore it? Do we respond to it every fifth time? Every tenth? Or not at all?

[David]
Not social value.  I think above all else Marsha values DQ.  DQ is also outside of intellectual value and logic.  Please read my post to dmb to see an in-depth post about what Marsha *values* and where her *logic* on this is wrong.