Krimel said:
Life without concepts is life on life support. For those who object, I
recommend advanced directives. If you want to stay plugged in, you are going to
have be engaged. The decision isn't between concept and no-concept... It's a
matter of which concepts.
dmb says:
Right, the choice is not between concepts and no concepts. To put it simply,
the choice is just whether or not to add feelings to concepts. The choice is
between unfeeling, amoral objectivity and an expanded and more well-rounded
form of rationality that includes the affective domain. The choice is between
cold, calculating logic and a fully human form of intelligence. We are adding
Quality to intellect, adding the pre-conceptual experience. This is NOT about
getting rid of concepts or choosing no concepts. It's about the expansion of
rationality, the improvement of rationality and reason.
It's hard to believe that you sincerely think anyone, except maybe Marsha, is
suggesting we abandon concepts. I think it's just one of the straw men you've
slapped together. I think you're disputing a position held by nobody.
Magnus said:
What I'm saying is that since we have this tool of the levels, and since it
*is* a rather good fit for dividing this undefined which is going on outside
our concepts of it, why not try to make it a better fit?
dmb says:
You're probably not going to believe this but the levels do not divide the
undefined. They re-define what is already defined, they re-conceptualize all
the stuff that is already in the encyclopedia. The undefined (DQ) is the only
thing that supposed to be left out of the four static levels. The levels are
not supposed to be representing an objective, pre-existing reality either. The
static patterns are supposed to agree with experience, not an objective
reality. In the course of experience we feel the pushing back and resistances
and persistences and from this we construct ideas of an objective reality. And
these are very handy ideas, but the MOQ says they are ideas. There is an
element of realism here. We know from experience that experience is not just
whatever we want it to be. Our concepts can fail quite miserably when they are
tested in experience. That's why the MOQ sometimes seems like a form of
realism. But there is also the important claim that "man is a participant
in the creation of all things", which is also expressed in the assertion that
reality as we know it conceptually, including yourself and the physical
universe, is one big set of analogies. That's why the MOQ sometimes seems like
a form of idealism. But it's not really idealism or materialism, it's radical
empiricism. Experience is reality and that is the starting point for all
subsequent conceptualizations. This is not experience OF the physical universe
or experience BY a subjective agent because those are among the
conceptualizations, among the analogies derived from experience. As Pirsig and
James say, the primary empirical reality is neither physical nor psychical. It
logically precedes this distinction.
Krimel said:
I think the problem with the AWGIs is that they think the MoQ should unite east
and west by having everyone convert to Buddhism. Kind of like seeing the
similarity between "cause" and "preference" and thinking that means atoms are
decision makers. Or seeing the Romantic/Classic split as an invitation to spend
your life singing Kumbaya.
dmb says:
Wow. You've presented three straw men in just three sentences. There is
something admirable about the efficiency of your production rate, unfortunately
what you're producing is bullshit. (I mean "bullshit" the technical,
Frankfurtian sense.) The liar cares about the truth enough to try and conceal
it and the idiot thinks he can have his own private truth. But the bullshitter,
Frankfurt says, simply doesn't care what's true. Maybe he even thinks there is
no such thing as truth. The bullshitter says what he say for some other reason.
Maybe he's trying to make a sale or win an election or just make himself look
good. As is usually the case with straw men, the purpose of these three
particular pieces of bullshit is to construct an opponent that is easy to
defeat. And of course that's a very handy escape hatch for anyone who cannot or
will not engage with the positions that people actually do hold.
Is it possible that you sincerely believe "the AWGIs" want to convert everyone
to Buddhism? Do you really think that anyone is standing up for atoms as
"decision makers"? Is it honestly your view that construing the MOQ as an
invitation to sing camp-fire songs from the '60s? Is any of that even slightly
plausible? I honestly don't see how.
And if your vitriol is a result of my failure to seriously engage with these
"issues", then your anger is just a straw man who's been piled on top of other
straw men. You get upset when I won't defend ridiculous positions that you made
up. Meanwhile you deny the existence of the actual positions, whole schools of
thought, when pressed against you, like reductionism, scientific materialism or
physicalism as it's known these days. Not to mention general squareness, which
covers all that and more. This is why I think you're insincere and unserious.
When it comes to a failure to engage the issues, I honestly think it's all on
you. My answers and criticisms could be wrong, but at least they are sincere.
Your criticisms, as these four straw men will testify, are pure bullshit. Straw
men like these don't deserve a philosophical response. They deserve a match.
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/md/archives.html
