[Platt] You keep harping on something you call "pragmatic value" but forget, or ignore, the low value Pirsig assigned to pragmatism.
[Arlo] All I mean by this is that "self" exists because it is better for it to exist than not exist, it has "value". But this value just doesn't "poof" into being, this "value" derives from the complex interactions of inorganic, biological and social patterns of value, interactions that make it "better" for the self-concept to form than not. But, this is always my point, once this self-concept emerges it gives off the illusion of having some "reality" apart from it manifested value. It gives off the illusion that it is an isolated "thing-over-here" separate from other "things-over-there". And, as I've said from day one, this illusion of separateness _IS_ the pragmatic value in the self. It is this illusion that allows us to build bridges and airplanes, paint that sunset and jam on an electric guitar. Recognizing the self as illusion _philosophically_ and seeing its value _pragmatically_ is what allows us to balance either extreme; either attaching the illusion as if it were "real" OR detaching from the pragmatic value as if its valueless. Now I am done with that part of the dialogue. I've said all I can say on the matter. I've repeated myself more times that I should have. [Arlo had said] Actually, not at all. I expressed a fairly common point from ZMM. You said "sounds like Idealism to me". Pirsig directly addresses this in ZMM. If you had read and understood the book, you would not have made such a telling [Platt] Another arrogant assertion without evidence. [Arlo] How is it arrogance to point out that if you actually read and understood ZMM, you would not say "sounds like Idealism", you'd say "sounds like Pirsig"? But no matter, I understand you dismiss this book, _have to_ dismiss this book, as it contains too many threatening ideas. [Arlo had said] This makes sense, oddly, if you accept what I've been saying, that its real, pragmatic value NOT some existential being. For me, I could easily say that my memory holds real, pragmatic value for me, but likely little for you. No contradiction. MOQish. For you, you'd have to argue how something can be real, in the sense of having some existential being apart from pragmatic value, for one person but not-real for another. [Platt] Huh? Would you run that by me again. We may agree in principle, but I'm not sure. [Arlo] "Memories", continuing what I did start above, are not "real" or "illusions" in some absolute, ueber sense. They are patterns of value. And as such you may hold a memory that has a great deal of value of to you, and hence because of this value, because this value _changes_ or in some way contributes to you acting differently or thinking differently because of this value, it is "real". But note that this "realness" is "value". In this way, its not whether some memory is "real", it is whether or not some memory has "value". The memories of your daughter have "real, pragmatic value" to you. They are, in convention, "real". But this reality is not based on some "tangible verification process", as you've suggested (which sounds strikingly SOM), but on its "value". The "illusion", I'll repoint out here, is precisely THAT it can be verified by some "tangible verification process". That it exists apart from its value. Namely, that it exists FIRST and then is valued afterwards. THAT is the illusion. [Arlo had said] Yes. I am the figment of my own imagination. I create myself out of value, and then convince myself I preceded that value, that is the illusion. [Platt] Holy mackerel, Arlo. That's one for the books. If you weren't yourself prior to the creation of yourself, who did the creating? [Arlo] Its derived from a Zen Koan. It points to the idea that asking if the self is "real" or "illusion" is, as both Ant and Dan (and SA and Ron, if I'm not mistaken) have suggested that this is a "mu" question. And, it points to the underlying paradox that is the core of our ANY intellectual description of experience. [Arlo had said] Fear sells. Pandering to xenophobic fear sells. Tell people its a "culture war", and its those evil secular progressives against the true and noble religious traditionalists. [Platt] You're right. Global warming sells. Lack of health insurance sells. Large national debt sells. Corporate greed sells. The main stream media panders to left-wing fears every day. [Arlo] When did I say that only rightist media and pundits pander to fear? Of course you are correct. Fear sells. Our political arena is wholly a "Nightmare" one. You simply choose to pander to one branch of fear-mongering, while condemning the other. Mayhap you should condemn fear-mongering in toto (and no, I don't mean while singing Rosanna). [Platt] Good. Maybe you'll learn something while being entertained. You of all people should know the best teachers are those who present their subject in an entertaining way. [Arlo] So long as the need to entertain does not obfuscate the information, it is not a problem. Another problem with the media (which includes talk radio) is in its need to entertain and generate revenue over presenting information. [Arlo had said] Another moveon.org squalk! Good work! And oddly I heard O'Reilly mention "left-wing blogs" today. You are a very good parrot! [Platt] You likewise of moveon.org and other leftist blogs. [Arlo] Praytell, such as? (And still another moveon.org squalk! Do you get paid each time you type it? You should!) 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/
