Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:48:29 +0100
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:36:08 -0500, Platt Holden
wrote:
> First. let me say that your MoQ-based analysis of the eugenics issue was a
> classic! If anyone has wondered how to apply the MoQ to practical moral
> questions in "the world of everyday affairs," your letter shows the way.
> It's a model that I'll follow whenever challenged by social/moral
> conundrums.
Thanks Platt, I laboured a lot over that one.
> Regarding the rationality question, my concern was that in using
> rationalism alone as a synonym for the intellectual level empiricism got
> left out. In your mind, rationalism includes empiricism. In my mind, not
> so. Perhaps the following quote from Whitehead reveals the underpinning of
> my view:
> "It is a great mistake to conceive this historical revolt (of science) as
> an appeal to reason. On the contrary, it was through and through an
> anti-intellectual movement. It was a return to the contemplation of brute
> fact, and it was based on a recoil from the inflexible rationality of
> medieval thought."
If Whitehead's 'historical revolt' is the Renaissance -
Enlightenment development (?), it is a little strange to call it
anti-intellectual, after all it is known as the Age of Reason.
Medieval thought was based on the Scriptures and disregarded
empirical observations (the cardinals wouldn't even look through
Galilei's telescope), but given the premiss I understand your
objections.
> So I associate rationalism with the Inquisition and other intellectual
> edifices built on self-serving sands. Logical positivism, on the other
> hand, is closer to what I see as the prevailing intellectual level. When
> you describe this level as "S0M/Rationality/Science" our disagreement
> vanishes.
Right!
> As for the MoQ representing a new esthetic level growing out of intellect,
> I'm still of that mind and am trying to build a persuasive case for it. A
> key may be from Pirsig's letter to Anthony wherein he states, "It is
> important to keep all concepts out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are always
> static." Just how that fits in I'm not sure, but I suspect it's important.
> Any help you can offer would be much appreciated.
Keep up the effort Platt, from the first moment that idea struck
me as beautiful - of high quality. Besides, it is simply necessary,
Intellect cannot be transgressed without postulating a perspective
greater than intellect. If a light-bulb should appear above
my head, I'll let you know.
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 - 16:42:39 CEST