On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:00 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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.
Marsha: RMP's statement was "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable,." but there was also that little comment about an "a logical absurdity." > 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. I have a different history and different experiences of Dynamic Quality. I have never asserted that static patterns of value are indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. And yes, for me Reality=Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience.) That it doesn't make sense to you is the way it is. > 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: I don't remember anyone designating you the arbitrator of what can be discussed and what cannot be discussed, or how it must be discussed. I am interested in the MoQ coming from an Eastern philosophical direction. Btw, you haven't yet acknowledged that James probably got his 'pure experience' insights from reading the Vedic and Buddhist's texts while he was in his twenties. I don't get that. > > > 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: And again you ignore that little phrase "a logical absurdity." Just accidentally forgot it, did you? I'm back to observing truth, for you, is relative to your own self-interest. > > 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 criticism 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 apprecia te 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. Marsha: Your insults don't bother me, but they don't stand as anything meaningful either. ___ 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
