Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:59:09 +0100
!5 January, Anthony McWatt wrote:
> I am unhappy with the replacement of "intellect" with
> "rationality".
> Firstly, "rationalism" is the philsophical theory of "a
> priori" ideas, that truth and knowledge are attainable
> primarily through reason rather than through experience.
> Unfortunately, I think its usuage within the MOQ could
> become confusing especially as the MOQ is an EMPIRICAL
> theory opposed to RATIONALITY. Maybe the term "reasoning"
> could be put in its place but even with this term there are
> problems
16 January, Platt Holden wrote:
> Such rationalizations (conjectures) are an example of why I agree with your
> argument that "intellect" should replace "rationality" in the MoQ. Science
> began as a revolt against the rationalism of the Scholastics whose "a
> prior" ideas led them to argue about how many angels could dance on the
> head of a pin. As you point out, science turned to empiricism which is the
> basis of the MoQ.
Gentlemen!
I must hasten to say that 'rationality' wasn't meant to replace Static
Patterns of Intellect as the official name in the MOQ. The reason for
introducing the term stems from a thread in the early days of TLS when
the evasiveness of this value dimension dawned upon us. At first it
was tried pinned down as thinking - mental activity - consciousness;
"mind" for short, but this really screws things up. The MOQ rejects
mind/matter as the fundamental division of reality so defining
intellect as mind means lapsing back to the SOM.
I long stuck to "Symbolic Language" (and still think it's a good
definition), but someone caught the idea that Intellect can be seen
as rational thinking - mathematics - was also brought up, and this I
bought immediately. Long before the LS days, it had puzzled me
greatly that Subject/Object metaphysics MAY be viewed as the
Intellectual level of MOQ! - I even raised the question in a letter
to Pirsig, but he did not respond.
Anthony goes on to say:
> One of the main ideas of ZMM (which was carried through
> to LILA) is that the dominance of rationality over the
> imaginative and artistic fields in Western thinking has
> fragmented the Human intellect.
> Pirsig basically says we have a two-tier system where
> rationality (or reasoning) is seen above rhetoric, art etc.
> As everyone knows this goes back to Plato and his example
> of the chariteer and the two wild horses that need
> reigning in. One of the aims of Pirsig`s work is to
> correct Plato`s error and put the arts on an equal footing
> with the sciences again. I therefore feel that the term
> "rationality" (especially with the use of the term
> representing a philosophical theory antagonistic towards
> the arts) should not be used within the MOQ.
Yes, exactly, but Intellect isn't (all of) MOQ. Pirsig is
critical to the Intellectual level which has come to dominate the
scene completely, and I found it just within a hair's breadth to draw
the conclusion that Intellect has usurped metaphysics as well and
claims to be reality itself (as Subject/Object thinking which IS
Rationality/Science). What you say is correct, but IMHO it confirms
the "Rationality" definition. Quality means art/imagination/rhetorics
back on equal footing - perhaps even into the charioteer seat!
Platt! You once suggested the idea of MOQ as a new "artistic"
Static Level growing out of Intellect, i.e. as freedom from
Intellect's tyranny. Added to the 'Intellect as
SOM/Rationality/Science', it completed a circle that I still find
attractive, but I may have gone off on a blind alley of my own.
Anyway, I am open for criticism.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST