From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 10:33:11 BST
Hi Johnny
>Paul previously said:
>You seem to be equating Rand's Reason with Pirsig's Quality.
Johnny said:
I'm not equating them, but they certainly are related. My point is not
that the mind needs to use its faculty of reason to determine value in
order
to create structured reality, but that the value that is followed is
reasonable, it is as it is for reasons, there is a reason for why
quality
preselects in the way it does, why certain data harmonizes better than
other
data. That reason is SQ, or "what we are". It isn't necessary that the
mind use reason to create reality, reason is inherent in Quality itself.
Paul:
Okay, I think you are throwing several definitions of 'reason' about
here. Look at the following definitions from Merriam-Webster:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason
Function: noun
(1a): a statement offered in explanation or justification
(1b): a rational ground or motive
(1c): a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense;
especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a
conclusion or explains a fact
(1d): the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE
(2): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in
orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe Rand is using 'reason' in the sense of (2) i.e. man's capacity
for logical, orderly, rational thought.
When you say that, "there is a reason for why quality preselects in the
way it does," I think you are using the definition (1b) i.e. Quality
operates with a rational motive. You go on to say that the 'rational
motive' is static quality, or to harmonize what we are with what we are
becoming.
I think it is important keep a distinction between man's power of reason
and what you imply is a 'universal reason.' If not, this path has been
well trodden by the likes of Hegel, and I think Coleridge, and it is not
one I think the MOQ can be taken down profitably.
In MOQ terms, it is important to keep a distinction between static
intellectual quality and Dynamic Quality and conflating definitions of
'reason' doesn't help us in this regard.
Johnny said:
Is that wrong? I do NOT think that "what we are becoming" is
unreasonable
or is unconnected to what we are, I think that we become what we become
for
reasons rooted entirely in what we are.
Paul:
Yes, experience and evolution is a relationship between Dynamic and
static quality, explained in some detail in Lila and explored further in
Mark Maxwell's essay.
Johnny said:
Dynamic change is reasonable, not unreasonable, right?
Paul:
As above, I think 'reasonable' should be used to refer to matters of
static intellectual quality. Dynamic Quality, being a conceptual
nothingness, is really beyond all measure of such dichotomies as
reasonable/unreasonable - the MOQ seems to say that Dynamic change is
for the better, and leaves it at that.
Johnny said:
I think there is only one way for things to be, things had to be the way
they are, and have to become what they become. Otherwise, DQ would
conflict
with itself, it would not just make arbitrary decisions about what to
harmonize with, it would harmonize with multiple, conflicting things.
There
would be no DQ if there were multiple possibilities for DQ, it would
cancel
out the meaning of it.
Paul:
Remember the MOQ interpretation of Mayr's, "spur of the moment
decisions" in Lila? It said that the dichotomy between chaos and
structure is resolved within a principle of betterness that is outside
of the structured static patterns it has previously created but is
nevertheless not chaotic.
Also, the principle of static latching can explain why things go a
certain way amidst infinite possibility - the things that 'latch' are
the things that work.
Johnny said:
If moments are connected, they are connected wholly and fully, there
can't
be any slack in the connection. The next moment necessarily follows the
current moment. Given that, this flowing of SQ according to DQ is the
same
as Reason.
Paul:
This needs more explanation, I really can't see the argument you have
built here.
Johnny said:
And if you don't agree that moments follow moments according to
necessity, if you think there is wiggle room for "free will" or "DQ",
then I
say you also don't understand Reason, or you think there is room for
"unreason" and "irrationality" also.
Paul:
I think that may be because you are stretching the meaning of 'Reason'
somewhat to accommodate your argument.
>Johnny previously said:
>But you can't have either without the other. Both are aspects of
>Morality.
>
>Paul previously said:
>I think the MOQ argues that there is no reason without value but there
>is value without reason. I agree that they are both aspects of Morality
>- static and Dynamic aspects.
Johnny said:
Yup, well all my posts always seem to come back to this. For example, I
disagree when Platt cites DQ as the source of beauty, as he implies that
it
shines on things without being beholden to any reason for doing so. A
great
new song needs to have no reason it is great, other than DQ inexplicably
and
unreasonably saying "like this song, it is excellent and beautiful!"
I do
not claim that people can know or explain why something seems beautiful
or
valuable, but I know that there are reasons why we do. If there were no
reasons for something being beautiful or valuable, what is the point?
Paul:
I think man invents reasons because we can't bear for things not to
'have a point.' Perhaps, as Zen Buddhism will teach you, 'the point' is
understood before a thought even forms in your head?
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2004 - 10:32:35 BST