Marsha said:
Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. What I say about Quality
is not Quality, it is a static representation relative to my history and DQ.
Quality (unpatterned experience/patterned experience).
Marsha then defended this comment by saying:
The comment 'Quality is unknowable, indivisible and undefinable.' was not
directed at static patterns of value, but at Quality.
dmb says:
Your original comment says Quality is undefinable and unknowable and then says
Quality is unpatterned and patterned. That formulation erases the distinction
between dynamic Quality (the unpatterned Quality) and static quality (the
patterns of quality). By erasing the MOQ's primary distinction, you have
asserted that static patterns are undefinable and unknowable. You really don't
see why that's wrong? You really don't see how that is contradictory? You
really don't see how that confuses the MOQ's first distinction? You really
don't see how that undoes Pirsig's first metaphysical cut? You really think
that makes sense? I don't.
Marsha said:
In mediations I have watched bits and pieces of patterns of value flow through
my consciousness. And, I have had unpatterned experiences.
dmb says:
Yea, okay. So what? Meditation is supposed to be about putting static patterns
to sleep but that is the last thing we want to do when discussing philosophical
ideas. Metaphysics isn't meditation. Metaphysics is all about precise ideas in
a coherent system of thought. Mystical experience and philosophical talk are
two very different things. It's a very bad idea to confuse these two things. It
conflates the static and the dynamic. How can you fail to see this? It's the
central distinction around which the MOQ is built.
Marsha said:
I have not used the words 'immediate flux.' I had an experience involving
Justice yesterday. Today I also had an experience of Justice, and it was
different than the experience of Justice yesterday. Also, patterns as the move
through consciousness have a beginning, a middle and an end; they are not some
absolute 'experience'. We can talk intellectual patterns about the MoQ
forever, and that talk is not Quality.
dmb says:
Again, just look at the evidence. The Quality that's "indivisible, undefinable
and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known" is, Pirsig
says, "the central reality if mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
'Quality in his first book". He's talking about DYNAMIC Quality and describing
the immediate flux of experience as undefinable. But you'e leaving out the
second half of that sentence! You chopped the idea in half! Pirsig goes on to
say that metaphysic is exactly the opposite of that! DQ can't be defined or
divided "but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be
divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics".
Marsha said:
And my comment about you reifying your imagination into "fiercest rivals'
stands. Your understanding of the MoQ seems page deep. ... Insulting comments
get you what?
dmb says:
Based on these two accusations, it seems to me that you do not understand the
meaning of the term "reify" nor the term "insult". Richard Rorty and
philosophical rivals are not abstract concepts such that he could be reified,
so that accusation just doesn't make any sense. Also, criticism of you claims
and assertions is perfectly fair game. It's hard to imagine how any kind of
intellectual progress could be made without criticism and correction. But you
have absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about insults.
As I've been pointing out, your regular pattern is to dismiss the evidence with
insults, as if it didn't count as evidence because an unworthy person was
presenting that evidence. That is nothing but an ad hominem attack. That is not
only a infamous form of invalid logic and a universally discredited form of
bogus argument, it's also immoral. Your general method of operation - insult
and evade, insult and evade - is irrational and sleazy. That is a c
riticism of your position and your method. Such criticisms, as opposed to mere
insults and personal attacks, would use words like illogical, irrational,
incoherent, contradictory, confusing, intellectually paralyzing, isolating,
solipsistic, relativistic, nihilistic and the like. Sound familiar?
Now when I called you an asshole, that was an insult. But even there, that term
was used to characterize one of your many evasions. Even the insults are about
something, based on something relevant to your conduct in these discussions.
It's not very nice, but there is some substance to it, at least. I don't invent
sinister motives or assign character flaws arbitrarily. It's not exactly an
objective, scientific fact but I think most reasonable people would read the
exchange in question and conclude that you really were being an asshole. I
mean, it's not like you haven't given me lots and lots of reasons to use
insulting terms and I'd even say that I've shown remarkable restraint on that
score. As I see it, you're only getting scolded and corrected but what you
deserve is so much worse. If I were responding to your comments and assertions
without any restraints, each paragraph would begin very differently. Maybe I
should do one or two posts like that so you can fully appreciate
what it means to be insulted. I imagine it would be a lot of fun to dump a
whole truckload of profanities in your lap. That's not hard to do. In your
case, it's hard not to.
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
