Marsha said to dmb:
I felt the need to tighten up my definition with "object of analysis" which I like better. Your pronouncements concerning the MoQ I do not take as anything other than your opinion. My interpretation doesn't work for you. That's fine. That you want to label my point-of-view anti-intellectual just makes me laugh. But thanks, I do think the phrase 'object of analysis' is more effective, and I owe that change all to you. dmb says: Yea, well I think you construct your "definitions" the way a soldier digs a foxhole. It just serves as a way to keep out of the line of fire. I also think your general stance (that you're too enlightened for philosophy) is outrageous and preposterous. That's just a foxhole too. Your posts constitute a mountain of evidence against the proposition that you are enlightened in any sense of the word and they count as a giant pile of evidence that you're not even up to philosophy, let alone above it. You've defined the intellect as inherently full of falsity, illusion and reification and then laugh at charges of anti-intellectualism. That's not enlightened behavior, that's just being irresponsible. You want to make your claims here in a philosophy forum but you never want to answer for them or discuss them. And your "definitions" make it pretty clear that you don't even care what words mean. You define "static" as ever-changing, for example, and otherwise show no decent respect for the english language. Naturally, the result is pure nonsense. But you apparently don't care about that either. It's like you hate ideas. It's like hate philosophical discussions. Okay, it's not for everyone. But what are you doing in a place like this? Is this just a place to have virtual friends and enemies? Need a little social drama in your life, perhaps? It can't be about the metaphysics of quality, that's for sure. Whatever the reason, it's not intellectual curiosity and I think you're abusing the place. You think that's enlightened? I don't. It's selfish and childish. > > > Marsha > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 11:47 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > Why would you thank me? If I had any influence on your revision this > > definition would make a lot more sense to me. As I see it, you have defined > > the intellectual level so that Pirsig's solution is thrown out the window > > and the problem is re-established. You've confused the disease for the > > cure, thereby construing the MOQ as an anti-intellectual form of the > > metaphysics it opposes. It's hard to imagine how a person could be more > > mistaken. > > > >> > >> Thanks to dmb I have slightly revised my definition: > >> > >> Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules > >> for their rational analysis and manipulation. Intellectual patterns > >> process > >> from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries > >> that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or as an “object of > >> analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), > >> where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, > >> which is free from the taint of any subjectivity. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Marsha > > > > > ___ > > > 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 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
