[Ian] Platt - intellectual cop out - 'nuff said. [Arlo] Intellectual cop out?!?! You really want me to wade through his latest barrage of moronic distortions? Fine. But I don't know what more I can add to the fundamental dialogue that I've already said, or that Dan has recently so eloquently and succinctly posted.
Let's start with this. [Arlo had said] Of course "intellectual patterns" are atop Pirsig's hierarchy of static patterns. But what I see as the real value to Quality is in its final dissolution of the "self" and "thing" into a moment of "grooving". [Platt responded] An alcoholic blackout or drug-induced trip is nirvana? Give me a break. [Arlo] You wanna tell me where you've pulled idiotic distortion from? Certainly not in anything I've said. If its the word "grooving", its the word Pirsig himself uses to describe the dissolution of "self" and "object", the overcoming of the illusion of separateness. As I said when I provided the following quote. "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object are identical. This is the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads, but it's also reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with it," "digging it," "grooving on it" are all slang reflections of this identity." (Pirsig) [Platt responded at first] Source? [Arlo] ZMM. You have the online version. I'm sure you can find it easily. [Platt continued] Remember what Pirsig had to say about "modern" flower children --blowing their minds, destroying their ability to reason. Not an attractive scene in the "pragmatic" world of Penn State. [Arlo] Just another rhetoric distortive tactic. "Flower children"? I'm talking about what Pirsig calls "the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads", the dissolution of the "self" and the "object" in the moment of pure Quality. [Platt] So are they real or not? A yes or no will suffice. [Arlo] I could easily defer to both Dan's and Ant's recent posts capturing the MOQ perspective on "real versus illusion". But as I've said, they have real pragmatic value. The things we experience are "real" only insofar as our value-interaction with them. The "self" is like this too. I had provided quotes by Einstein and Pirsig capturing this sentiment. [Platt] Dreams contain no evidence of existence except to the dreamer. Memories of the past can be verified by tangible evidence. [Arlo] How would I verify the memories of your daughter? I could verify she existed, yes, but how could I verify she was a beautiful person? What "tangible evidence" exists that captures your memories of catching your first fly-ball? Are these things "illusions"? Not to mention that people often have very different memories of the same experience. Which one is the "real" memory, and which is "illusion"? Are they both "real" simply because the holder "believes them to be real"? This is why, as I've said upteen times, "real" and "illusion" are simply contextual descriptors that depend on where you are coming from. The "self" is, thus, an illusion philosophically, and real pragmatically. There is no contradiciton there at all. [Platt] So long as the "self" has a unique DNA and fingerprint unlike any other self, it will be considered real, not an illusion, by those who can tell the difference between what's real and what's not. [Arlo] Are you saying the "self" is the biological body? Is "Arlo" the body I see when I look in the mirror? [Arlo had said] And we can move on pragmatically making use of the tools we have, but we have to, in the final analysis, recognize that are just that... "tools". [Platt] Yes, real tools -- not illusory. [Arlo] Real only by virtue of their pragmatic value, not because of some existential being apart from this value. That existential being that we think is apart is the illusion. [Platt] I'm not surprised that you view the modern notion of freedom and property ownership with pronounced indifference. [Arlo] Because they are unrelated. Indeed, from many perspectives "property" limits freedom. When everything is private property, I am hardly "free" to go where I want. When you own that lake, I can't swim in it freely any longer. As I said the last dozen times we had this conversation, we forgo this freedom willingly out of hopes that we, too, can secure the power to prohibit others. The modern association of "freedom" with "property" is born out of the capistocratic and materialist culture that emerged from the Industrial Revolution. [Platt] Also, remember that Pirsig didn't think Indians could survive very long in the modern world. I hope you are not recommending a return to buffalo hunting, scalping and rain dancing. [Arlo] I side with Pirsig's critique of modern culture. [Platt] Yes, "rational understanding," not nonsensical dreaming or loony illusions. The MOQ is nothing if not down to earth and relative to everyday living. [Arlo] Rational understanding built around a mystic and undefinable core. The MOQ is nothing without that central core, worse, it'd be just another in a string of S/O rationalist philosophies that keep "man" forever apart from "the world". [Platt] At last, agreement. Not a Buddhist philosophy. [Arlo] No, the MOQ is a Buddhist philosophy. But it is not Buddhism. And the MOQ is a postmodern philosophy. But it is not Postmodernism. [Platt] I'll pass. I only reply when you throw some of your Marxist crap and moveon.org character assassination into an otherwise reasonable discussion. [Arlo] And on to the moronic "moveon.org" bullshit. Yes, over the past few weeks, O'Reilly and Hannity have so stepped up their Wurlitzer of "tactics of moveon.org" that my count of an hour of the Hannity program yesterday found 14 times between 5 and 6 (when it airs here), and on O'Reilly yesterday 11 times in the half-hour period of 12:30-1. So it is no surprise to me that suddenly you start squalking this here. Sad. But beyond this insipid parroting of talk-radio bunk, I find it very ironic that the same sentence that seemingly condemns "character assassination" uses the rhetorical trick of association to try to equate ME with THEM. Talk about hypocrisy. Beyond this, as I've said more times than I can count, "character assassination" is a feature of BOTH modern political parties. To attempt to make it seem like "libs do it" but "conservatives don't" is simply more moronic propaganda. The ad against General Petraus was appalling, but so is the ongoing smear of the right wing loonies against anyone who dares challenge conservatism. Most appalling is the "libs hate America, side with the enemy and want to see American soldiers killed". This is the sort of stuff that we should be ashamed by across the board. But by pandering to the moronic notion that "its just them libs" is the kind of vile, moronic propaganda that is contempible in this forum. So let me then go on to the next vile and moronic statement. [Arlo had said] Take another crack at your typical distortions and moronic statement like "libs hate freedom". The floor is all yours. [Platt] I thought you were in favor of universal health care. [Arlo] The implication here is that by supporting universal health care I "hate freedom". The rational is that by supporting a government program, I hate freedom. But wait! Do I "hate freedom" because I support the public park system? Do I "hate freedom" because I support public roads and waterways? Do I "hate freedom" because I support public libraries and museums? Do I "hate freedom" because I support taxation to fund a socialized military? A socialized police force? A socialized judiciary? A socialized mint and treasury? Am I "anti-freedom" because I support public firefighters? Am I "anti-freedom" because I support a socialized immigration bureau? The FBI? CIA? Do I "hate freedom" because I support NASA?? Here is the bottom line. We all have ideas about what role the government should play, and what programs it should fund. But to paint someone else as being "anti-freedom" for supporting one program you don't, while supporting so many yourself, is, again, simply moronic talk-radio propaganda. I also find it funny that "Mr. Freedom" actively wants to ban my freedom to use the pipes on my motorcycle as I see fit. I could, I suppose, use his same tactics and accuse him of being "anti-freedom", but I recognize that the issue of social freedom and the issue of social order are intrinsically tied. Unless Platt is proposing absolute anarchy, one is forced to restrict the freedoms of some for the good of the many. And once again that just belies his underlying hypocrisy and empty rhetoric. 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/
