[Platt] No reversal. Thoughts are real. You limit reality to the physical realm, the first two moral levels. (Ironically, you insist on the influence of culture on thought, but then claim both are illusions.)
[Arlo] Not at all. What I've said all along is that the "self" is no more real than a "thought". And that both are "real" only insofar as they guide and enable very valuable pragmatic activity. But the "self" does not hold some ueber-reality apart from this. This is why when we examine the self philosophically we can see that it is an illusion, but when we examine the self pragmatically we can see that it is quite real. I can dream all I want that I have a million dollars, doing so does not make it "real". This is the illusion. But, as you said, such a dream may indeed engender activity towards this goal. And that is the reality. [Platt] The postmodern belief that truth doesn't exist is certainly unique. [Arlo] Our intellectual descriptions of nature, rooted in social-cultural grounds, are (as the postmodern MOQ would argue) are best viewed as a continuum of "better", and how that betterness relates to the activity is structures (polar versus Cartesian coordinates, to use Pirsig's example). The MOQ, as a philosophy, is no more True than any other, however it is far more valuable (better) in how it guides activity. Using the word "true" within the philosophy is mere convention (unavoidably so). For Pirisg to say "according to the MOQ, X is always true" is a relative statement within the larger framework that "Truth" is not absolute. I realize there are latent S/O tendencies to want to Dogmatize Pirsig's works, to say the MOQ is entirely and aculturally True for all people and all times. And the language Pirsig uses within the MOQ at times confuses this issue. But I have every confidence that the transparent reason to use to the MOQ to form a national and cultural hierarcy with "us" on the top is quite visible to all. [Platt] The suggestion that the MOQ isn't rational boggles the mind. [Arlo] With its core principle, Quality, left undefined, how you can call it an entirely "rational" philosophy boggles the mind. [Platt] Show me where Pirsig says, " The MOQ is a Buddhist philosophy." [Arlo] "I'm not original on this point, except to identify Quality with the Tao and with Buddha-nature (hence the title of ZMM)" (Pirsig) Correspondence with Pirsig, for a PhD Pirsig supports, led Ant to write "the three principal influences recognised by Pirsig as underlying the MOQ: these are Zen Buddhism, the work of William James and the work of F.S.C. Northrop." (McWatt), restated in his MOQ Introduction (also taken from correspondance with Pirsig) "Within the MOQ, Pirsig incorporates elements of William James's pragmatism and radical empiricism, Taoism, Zen Buddhism, evolutionary theory and the work of F.S.C. Northrop " (McWatt). "The Dynamic aspect of Quality is that Quality which I associate most closely with Zen Buddhism." (Pirsig) Apart from this, one only need read the works of Pirsig, not to mention interviews, to see how often "Zen" and "Buddhism" are used in parallel discussion with the MOQ. And as for your continuing dismissal of ZMM as relevant to the MOQ, I find one only needs to hear Pirsig himself. "ZMM has, in some ways, what is the most important part of the MOQ which is the build-up, it is an inductive book. LILA is a deductive book." (Pirsig) ------------------- Now that the real dialogue part is over. Let's take a step-by-step examination of your entirely moronic squalking of party dribble. [Platt had initially made this moronic statement] Both real AND illusory, like my cat is also my dog. That makes perfect sense. I guess in your ivory tower, words are meaningless. [Arlo had pointed out the stupidity of such a ridiculous statement that panders to typical right-wing bullshit about the dreaded academy] The typical, expected distortions, followed by another boring cliche assault on the academy. Talk about "ho hum". [Platt responds] Avoiding the issue as usual by throwing mud. [Arlo] Tell me what "issue" I am avoiding? Your initial comment above, as I point out, is simply moronic rhetoric. [Platt had also made this entirely moronic statement, perhaps even more moronic than the previsous] Neither is history I suppose. No wonder you libs are so eager to ignore the wisdom of the past. [Arlo had once again pointed out the inane, frankly shameless, rhetoric of this moronic statement] Oh yes, we "libs" are sooo eager to ignore wisdom, deny freedom, side with the enemy, see American soldiers killed, lie, cheat and throw good, wholesome conservatives like yourself into gulags. Your constant pandering to right-wing talk radio nonsense continues to be shameless. Since I also gather this is simply more master-baiting, that you must feel an empty spot in your soul when your are not engaged in vitriolic exchanges with "commies", I'll pass. I have better things to do. [Platt tried to pretend, sadly, his statement was somehow "cogent"] Ho-hum. The usual, totally predictable diatribe when you run out of cogent argument. [Arlo points out the stupidity of this assertion] Oh, right, like your inane statement deserved "cogent response". When you dribble such stupid talk-radio bile into the dialogue, Platt, all one can do is respond by showing the outright moronic nature of such statements. "libs are eager to ignore the wisdom of the past"... Please. Such stuff is just stupid, shameless and moronic. But hey, why break tradition... [Platt once again tries to act like his initial comment was something other than a moronic squalkings of a party parrot] And more mud. Incapable of keeping a civil tongue in your head much less coming up with a cogent response. [Arlo once more points back to Platt's initial moronic comment] Civil tongue? Why should your initial moronic statement be met with "civil tongue"? "Libs are eager to ignore the wisdom of the past" is nothing more than moronic, idiotic squalking of some ridiculous party propaganda, nothing more than the rehashed bullshit one hears daily on talk radio. So you bet it gets met with nothing but words that point out how absolutely moronic your posts are. But good luck trying to convince others that poor Platt is being (boo hoo) unfairly attacked by a leftist commie freedom hating hippie. Anyone who can read can see its YOUR moronic rhetoric that is the issue here. And now I am done. Take another crack at your typical distortions and moronic statement like "libs hate freedom". The floor is all yours. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
