Marsha: So you have several fake reasons for your evasion this time; 1) You were only kidding and 2) There is a big difference between saying "reality is whatever you want" and saying "reality is whatever you think". Apparently you think the former misrepresents your views and somehow you believe the textual evidence from ZAMM leaves your actual view in tact and 3) You have no desire to defend yourself.
I'd be interested to know what you think the difference is. Either way, your view is some kind of whateverism. Either way, my criticism is of the notion that the MOQ is a form of relativism. Do you really think it is a misrepresentation to say your view is relativism? Haven't you said so yourself? Look, I presented you with the evidence against relativism and simply asked you if the quote sounded like an expression of relativism. And the fact is you continue to respond to everything BUT the actual point and the actual evidence. Am I the bad guy for calling attention to these unscrupulous evasion tactics? Or are you the bad guy for using these unscrupulous evasion tactics? Like I said, you deserve a lot more grief than you get. Your responses are dishonest, unfair, unkind, irresponsible and often downright flakey - especially when it comes to my objections. A decent thinker would respect the evidence. How would you characterize a person who refused to talk about passages from the books we're here to discuss? How would you characterize someone who firmly held a position contrary to the evidence presented day after day? How would you characterize someone who made one excuse after another instead of defending this contrary position? Is there a way to characterize such beha vior that isn't insulting? If there is a non-insulting way to complain about that kind of bullshit, I'd like to know what it is. > From: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:34:57 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] william James. > > > dmb, > > You have again misrepresented what I have said. For example, I have made the > correction many times that I have NEVER said "reality is whatever you WANT." > I have said "reality is whatever you think." There is a big difference > between the two statements. But you continue to misrepresent my words. > Whether your misinterpretation is a mistake or intentional, I have no desire > to defend myself against fabrication. > > > Thank you. > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:38 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > > > > dmb, > > > > So sorry, I should have used an e-motive. I was kidding :-) > > > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:32 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > >> > >> Marsha said to dmb: > >> > >> Oh my, have you had a realization? Or are you still going to hurl insults > >> at me because I will not adopt the perspective you've concocted from your > >> small portion of the flux-of-life? > >> > >> > >> dmb says: > >> > >> A realization? No, not lately. Apparently you think James's statement > >> about the need for "many cognizers" supports your view that reality is > >> whatever we want it to be. Apparently, you think it supports your > >> relativism. But of course that's exactly the interpretation I've been > >> objecting to all along, isn't it? I think you are always interpreting > >> pragmatism and the MOQ the way its uncomprehending critics always have; as > >> a form of relativism. This is just one more example of conflating > >> relativism with the plural and provisional nature of pragmatic truth. This > >> is a criticism of your stance but the reason I "hurl insults" is separate > >> from that. Those remarks are about your attitudes and conduct as a > >> participant here. > >> > >> This particular response of yours, for example, belittles my view and it > >> assigns a sinister motive to me, as if I were trying to make you adopt my > >> perspective by calling you names. As I see it, I've been trying to make > >> you understand what Pirsig and James are saying by presenting quotes and > >> explanations. The "insults" are hurled at the way you respond to these > >> reasonable arguments. In this case, I wasn't even talking to you and > >> you've always maintained that you don't give a bunny's butt what James > >> thinks. But somehow this is about you? > >> > >> As I see it, you have done everything to dismiss a mountain of evidence > >> and you are constantly evading the actual issues. I find that very > >> frustrating and very hard to respect. And so I call it like i see it and > >> as I see it that sort of behavior deserves to be insulted. > >> > >> "What he neglected to say was that the selection of facts before you > >> 'observe' them is 'whatever you like' ONLY IN A DUALISTIC, SUBJECT-OBJECT > >> METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM! When Quality enters the picture as a third > >> metaphysical entity, the preselection of fact is no longer arbitrary. The > >> preselection of facts is not based on subjective, capricious 'whatever you > >> like' but on QUALITY, which is reality itself. ...we know from Phaedrus' > >> metaphysics that the harmony Poincare talked about is NOT SUBJECTIVE. It > >> is the SOURCE of subjects and objects and exists in an anterior > >> relationship to them. It is NOT capricious, it is the force that OPPOSES > >> capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and mathematical > >> thought which DESTROYS capriciousness, and without which no scientific > >> thought can proceed." (ZAMM, page 269, emphasis is Pirsig's in the > >> original) > >> > >> Does that sound like relativism? Does that sound like Quality could be > >> equated with chaos, as Krimel says? No, of course not. Just because there > >> is more than one way to be right, because there can be more than one > >> truth, does not mean you can't be wrong, or illogical or simply read with > >> a low level of comprehension. There are lots of ways to be right but there > >> are even more ways to be wrong. Some things just don't add up or make > >> sense, not even to a pragmatist. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Marsha > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:37 AM, david buchanan wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Ian said: > >>>> > >>>> I can't see what it says to John's point about the redundancy ( non > >>>> pragmatism ) of multiverses / many worlds ? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> dmb says: > >>>> > >>>> Did John have a point about redundancy? > >>>> > >>>> In any case, here is the basic idea: John said, "I just don't see the > >>>> need for a ridiculous kludge like multi-uni-verse". And I responded with > >>>> a quote from James explaining the main idea behind this "ridiculous > >>>> kludge": > >>>> "The truth is too great for any one actual mind, even thought that mind > >>>> be dubbed 'the Absolute,' to know the whole of it. The facts and worths > >>>> of life need many cognizers to take them in. There is no point of view > >>>> absolutely public and universal." (James says in the intro to his "Talks > >>>> to Teachers") > >>>> > >>>> Basically, James is saying that there is no objective truth, no absolute > >>>> reality. Life is too rich and thick to be nailed down by any single view > >>>> or perspective. Each of us can only take so much from the flux of life, > >>>> we can only select a certain slice or notice a small portion of > >>>> experience. Each cognizer can only grapple with a handful of sand from > >>>> an endless landscape of experience. > >>>> > >>>> I'd add that "multi-verse" is probably the right word when talking about > >>>> physics but this notion that life needs many cognizers is probably > >>>> better referred to as a "pluralistic universe" simply because we are not > >>>> living in different universes so much as we have many different ways to > >>>> take it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >> > >> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
