> [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.
And I'm talking about what Pirsig had to say about that in Lila: "Whatever the intellectuals of the twenties had fought to create, the flower children of the sixties fought to destroy. Contempt for rules, for material possessions, for war, for police, for science, for technology were standard repertoire. The "blowing" of the mind was important. Drugs that destroyed one's ability to reason were almost a sacrament. Oriental religions such as Zen and Vedanta that promised release from the prison of intellect were taken up as gospel. The cultural values of blacks and Indians, to the extent that they were anti-intellectual, were mimicked. Anarchy became the most popular politics and squalor and poverty and chaos became the most popular life-styles. Degeneracy was practiced for degeneracy's sake." (Lila, 24) Distortion? Hardly. "Blowing of the mind" and "dissolution of self and object" go hand in hand. Destroying "one's ability to reason" likewise. Just as I thought. You really can't back up your accusation of "moronic distortions." > [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. Sounds like pure Idealism to me -- reality only from our experience of it. I thought that went out with Bishop Berkeley. "After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." Boswell: Life." > [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"? That my daughter existed can be verified. You could not verify her as a beautiful person because you never met her. But, as soon as you admit that, you admit the existence of a private "self." which you deny. My catching my first-fly ball has long since disappeared from my memory. Memories of unique "self" experiences like that are ephemeral and could be considered illusory, if you admit the existence of a self which you don't. > 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"? Seems you are questioning the concept of verification that science relies on for its progress and the law relies on to render justice. Two people may have different detailed memories of an auto accident they were in, but rarely differ on the reality that an accident occurred. > 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? Partly and necessarily, yes. And Arlo is the "self" that will eventually end up in a box or jar. Then hopefully there will be some with pleasant memories or Arlo that won't be illusory. > [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. That's precisely where we disagree. See Boswell above. > [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. That's a whole other subject which you and I obviously have a difference of opinion. > [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. Not in my view. And I thought you said Buddhists avoid philosophy. > [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. Keep listening. Maybe you'll learn something. Personally I go for Laura Ingraham whose latest book is No. 1 on the NY Times list. Maybe you should ask yourself why. Maybe even read the book. Open your closed mind a bit. > 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. Fact: Liberal Columbia University invites the president of a country that has assisted in killing American soldiers to speak. The same libs kicked the ROTC off campus in 1969. Appalling? You bet. You want to defend that? > 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. No, that is not the rationale. I specifically referred to the loss of freedom under Hillary Care. No sane person buys your distortion spewed below. > 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. Your premise that I consider all government programs to be anti-freedom is pure bunk. Talk about distortion! > 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. Ah, the usual left-wing diatribe. Don't you ever get tired of listening to yourself rant on? 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/
