From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 24 2004 - 21:27:07 GMT
Paul, Bo,
Bo said:
My claim is:
[Premise] 1) ZMM describes the emergence of SOM with the Greeks.
[Premise] 2) LILA and all Pirsig says conveys the impression that the intellectual level emerged with the Greeks!
[therefore,] 3) Intellect=SOM.
Admittedly # 2 is the crux
Paul:
Incorrect - 2 is not the crux. Even if both premises are true it is a genetic fallacy to arrive at your conclusion. The fallacy is that it does not necessarily follow that, because the first intellectual pattern was SOM, every intellectual pattern is SOM. Just as all life is not a virus. Your logic is flawed.
Bo said:
If you admit to SOM being the FIRST intellectual pattern then it's plain that it is the masterplan that all subsequent patterns evolved from.
Paul said:
By the way, I've resorted to logical refutations to show you that the SOLAQI, as a theory, is based on poor reasoning, because I'm fed up of having my arguments brushed off as interpretation issues or as a personal bias against you. I'm not doing it to make you look silly.
Matt:
I replayed this little dialogue because I wanted to say something about argumentation. I think Paul's right, as long as Bo claims that there is a necessary, logical connection between 1-3, he stands on poor ground, that somehow just because it was first means that everything follows in its footsteps. Plants and animals are both biological, but most people wouldn't claim that just because plants/animals evolved first doesn't mean that all animals/plants are plants/animals. That seems a little silly.
However, I don't think saying "logical refutation" gets at what's really going on. I don't think Bo's suddenly wrong because we can't get from 1 and 2 to 3. What that sometimes means is that there's another premise laying around that would make sense of the reasoning chain. As an interpretational issue of what Pirsig means by the "intellectual level," I think Bo doesn't have a leg to stand on, but as a piece of philosophy I don't see why anybody else isn't as creaky as he is. I think if Pirsig had meant SOM to be the intellectual level, he might have said it. However, I think you can still claim that the spirit of what Pirsig wrote was leading to the equation of SOM and intellect though Pirsig never enunciated it. Barring even that, Bo can still define SOM as intellect and see how far he gets in developing, defending, and using his view. Does it clear up holes in Pirsig? Does it clear up other philosophical anamolies? If Bo did this (which is what I think he should
do), then it wouldn't matter if it was in Pirsig at all. You wouldn't be able to "logically refute" it at all. It would be a different vocabulary with which you could only contrast and compare the advantages and disadvantages of each.
So, pace Paul, I think this exactly is an interpretational issue as Bo has framed it and that is exactly why he is wrong as he's framed it. As a theory, though, as opposed to an explication of Pirsig, he's not going to be refuted as long as he sticks to his guns. And at that point all you can do is make your theory look good and the other guy's look silly.
Matt
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 : Sat Jan 24 2004 - 21:28:14 GMT