Hi Andre, Since I was mentioned here (out of the blue), I will respond. Sometimes I do not like to sit idly by while you spray me with graffiti. Especially if somebody is crying out for help. You have a lot of anger about something, and I guess I am your dog for now. I don't mind that so long as you get something out of it.
How about we have an intellectual discussion here? Your claim below that I am anti-intellectual is not based on much intellectual writing. Like I said, I have no problem that you need to vilify me with your (necessary) vitriol. However, you can at least make the attempt to do so in a civilized way. I do have some comments on your "intellectual" presentation below. On 6/28/12, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron asks: > > Is Quality a Monism? firstly, it should be clear we are speaking of static > quality and when we are speaking of monads we are speaking about unity, > oneness, whole. > > Andre: > Hi Ron, I shall never pretend to be Antony but will give you my take on > this. Yes, Quality is a monism. That is the contradiction Pirsig is talking > about in LILA (DQ/sq). Andre, what Pirsig is saying is beware of the tendency to grasp onto contradictions. It seems you have done just this. Once you understand what Pirsig is presenting, any contradictions are not important. He cautions against the reliance on metaphysics for Truth, and calls such a thing degenerate, remember? I would like a little more "intellectual insight" from you as to why Quality is an expression of monism. Typically a metaphysical means for description is monistic, not the subject which is being described. However, I believe what you meant was that MoQ subscribes to monism, and are just a little confused about your grammar. Fair enough if English is not your first language. It was not mine either, but I have lived in the US for some time now. With unifying theories abounding, physics is also monistic in the correct sense of the word. You know, energy and matter being the same thing. You know, the grand unifying theories posited in string theory. There is nothing new about monism. Christianity is dualistic, of course since it assumes a god which is separate from us. If Quality were an expression of monism, then we could not speak of it as something separate, could we? This is, of course one approach to Quality, but it does not suffice as a metaphysics. There is nothing material about either DQ or SQ. Both are made up to describe Quality. If we describe a house by its shape and color, it does not make the house those two things, nor does it make the house a monistic concept. It is monistic only if you project in some religious sense and convert MoQ into a theology that this happens. That is what is called a cult. MoQ is neither monism nor dualism (not pluralistic either). Your own sense of reality is what is creating the duality by treating Quality as some object. Without such duality you would not have the concept of "monality" (or oneness). If one does not approach MoQ through dualism, there is no monism. For the concept of monism can only exist when juxtaposed with dualism (or pluralism). And, those are the wrong tools for MoQ (remember?). This is why Pirsig says that Western Metaphysics took a wrong turn. Therefore, this is a dilemma that we do not have to get in between the horns of. It takes a different approach from dialectic materialism. That is what ZAMM was all about, in case you forgot. It did not deal with the Truth behind a description, it dealt with a description encompassing Truth (Rhetoric 1: Dialectic 0). > > You shouldn't really do the separating (DQ/sq) but Pirsig's strength, > brilliance and audacity convinced him that that really is the way to go > philosophically/metaphisically. Especially considering the blending and > continuation Pirsig accomplished of mainstream american philosophical > traditon. If he hadn't have done that people would have seen it as an > abberation, a twisted mangle of eastern and western philosophical > opportunism which would have left ZMM and LILA in a 'cultus' status they do > not deserve and, I am convinced, are saved from. ( Mark and Marsha are in > this swing and that is ultimately very denigrading to Pirsig's MoQ). Of course one should separate DQ and SQ! What do you know about why Pirsig chose those acronyms? Please explain this "convincing" which you say was due to strength, brilliance and audacity. How is it that those three attributes can possibly convince Pirsig? It is the other way around. Since Pirsig was convinced (through previous experiences), he then had the strength, brilliance, and audacity to set it down on paper. Do you call that an intellectual statement? Why do you say that DQ and SQ shouldn't "really" be separated. Are you suggesting here that DQ is non other than SQ? I think I have heard that one before... You are guilty of the very same thing that you berate Marsha for. Please explain yourself here (rhetoric 2: dialectic 0). I am not sure what you are dealing with, perhaps some truths of your own making. You are the one being denegrating to MoQ. Remember that MoQ is a metaphysics of Quality. Remember Quality? Remember what a metaphysics is? You seem to be lost in a land of Andre metaphysics. You do not seem to understand the first principles of MoQ Do you really know anything about "Mainstream American Philosophical Tradition"? Have you ever read anything by Emerson? He Blends Eastern and Western philosophy and was never considered opportunistic. He created the concept of transcendentalism (I think). The effects of his writings are still with us here in the U.S.A. Please tell me what "blending of American Metaphysics went on". You can even provide me a quote if it makes you look more intelligent. Perhaps you should stick to European metaphysics, like monarchy. You lose your king (or was it queen), and put in place a government just like it. If a cult is something that is out of the mainstream, then where is the mainstream for MoQ? Any idea that is new for its time, is seen as an abberation. This is what SQ does to people. If, as you say, MoQ is simply a continuation of the same old, same old, then you are at odds with Ant. You claim that if Pirsig had not done this blending then "people" would have seen it as an aberration. What "people" are you talking about? What aberration are you speaking of? Pirsig speaks of the aberration of Subject Object Metaphysics. Do these same "people" find SOM to be an aberration? Or are you saying that Pirsig maintained the integrity of SOM therefore people did not see his philosophy as an aberration? You sound a bit confused here. It is probably because you were thinking about denigrating me instead of what you were writing. Either that or you were trying to be purposefully anti-intellectual to make a point (Rhetoric 3: Dialectic 0). What is "your swing" by the way. Are you going to put something intelligent down on paper, or simply rant about some phantasm you have made up in your head and given my name. > > Ron: > It tends to lend to the idea of completeness. > > Andre: > It seems to me that DQ (on its own) is not, as you suggest unity, oneness, > whole. Sq is, for the same reason not unity, oneness, whole. No, both are > (Dq/sq). The simple reasoning being: how do you know unity, oneness, whole? > They are static conceptions...and how are you aware of DQ except from a > static point of view? > What I find fault with the Marks and Marshas is that when you use THEIR > reasoning all you get is daisies and wanks...DQ/sq...(what's the > difference?)...and then certainly we should not use words...all is > adjectives anyway... that is the quickest way to absolutely destroy > yourself:nihilism (a la Mark). What are you going on about? DQ does not exist without SQ, and the converse is also true. DQ and SQ are used to describe Quality, remember?; MoQ is a description of Quality. They cannot stand on their own, or it is like one hand clapping (oops sorry, I guess that was not intellectual of me, not black and white enough for you). If I describe the world as a battle between good and evil, then can either one stand alone in this battle? Of course not, for that is not the basis for my description. You have suddenly given both DQ and SQ a life of their own. What kind of metaphysics are you creating. Maybe you should write an additional book of your own, it could be titled: "DQ, the Aberrant Son who Broke Away from Quality, and the Resulting Conflict Between It and SQ in the Quest for supremacy." If you are not aware of DQ, then you have not read what Pirsig has to say. There is nothing static about such awareness, believe me. You seem to be stuck on the pages of a book, and have not personalized this Quality one bit. Pirsig is trying to explain this to you so that you can use it. Remember when Pirsig tried to follow DQ only? Do you think he was static? Please, you are so ignorant of what Pirsig went through that you see everything as some professorial teaching in a classroom. This is why Pirsig brings in SQ, to show you how you are stuck, that is supposed to be the lesson. This is something that MoQ seeks to correct. You have taken it to a whole new level by saying that Quality is static. What a waste. So tell me, what is the difference between red and blue? Once you can answer that honestly, you will see what the difference is between DQ and SQ. Use your intellect for a change. > > This is the anti-intellectual trend Marsha and Mark are examples of. It is > bad. Like I said, Andre, your observations are about as anti-intellectual as they get. What do you mean by "this"? If all you get from our writing is "wanks" then that is your fault. You can't blame us for that. I cannot teach you how to think, that is your own thing. Do you even know what intellectual means? Why don't you describe what intellectual means to you. Do you think Buddha was anti-intellectual? Perhaps when your read anything you do not understand it becomes a bunch of "daises and wanks." Then you cry out how bad it all is. I have yet to see something intellectual coming from you. Why don't you give it a try. How about two intellectual paragraphs... So far all I see is you running with the banner of anti-intellectualism. > > To just continue Ron, for a small bit...in this conventional, static world > the 'idea of completeness" shall remain an idea. All is provisional and > shall..in time and space...remain representations (sq). Yes! The "idea of completeness" is an idea; golly-gee what a novel concept you have there. What kind of intellectual conclusion is that? Perhaps you are hoping for a place where the "idea of something" is not an idea? This is utter nonsense! Again you are promoting anti-intellectualism and a dumbing down of your reader. Yes, the smell of a skunk shall remain a smell. I think you know what I mean there. > > Ron: > I think, though, that the value can be improved if the dualism implied by > knowledge-of-some-thing is understood and remains as hypothetical. The MoQ > is afterall a monism (with Quality the source of all that exists.)? At its > highest, static (patterned) quality? may represent the best value availab > > Andre: > Ron, I am not convinced that the MoQ deals in 'hypotheticals'. Are you > suggesting (a la Marsha) that static patterns of quality should be treated > as hypotheticals? (for fuck's sake, Marsha doesn't even acknowledege sq!!!) Andre, are you confusing Ron for Marsha? What have you been drinking? BTW, what Marsha means by hypotheticals (I think) is that knowledge is a projection of the brain. Of course it is, knowledge needs a brain. We create knowledge in our heads. Such knowledge is like making constellations from the stars. It is a grand achievement of Man, and very useful. As you can see, I am all for the intellectual, until it professes to be more than it is, like spouting Truths. It makes life interesting, much more that your anti-intellectual proclivity, to just follow whomever sounds righteous to you. Think for yourself Andre. Don't just say that something is right because Pirsig says it is. Use your brain. How would you describe Quality (as you experience it) in Metaphysical terms? There are a thousand ways to do it, all I ask for is one that is different from what Pirsig rhetorically speaks of. Or, perhaps you have no sense of Quality and it is simply some clever twisted of logic for you. Pirsig is decribing his own experience, why don't you describe yours. Stop sitting in the back row throwing tomatos and step up and deliver. Tell us what you really think about Quality. At least then I will understand why you are in this forum. So far you just seem like a cheer leader. How about you take off that fancy tu-tu costume and play in the game? When you "acknowledge SQ", what does that mean exactly? Previously you said that SQ and DQ should not have been created. Marsha understands the distinction between SQ and DQ, in fact she has written many little "definitions" of SQ. Is this not enough for its acknowledgement? You are confusing her resynthesis of Quality (by relating DQ and SQ), with some kind of idea that she is saying that SQ is not a concept. Why don't you try to provide a description of SQ, I will pepper you with so many Socratic questions that you won't know what to believe. So tell me, in your own words, how are SQ and DQ different? What, cat got your tongue? > > Okay, lets kep it nice. Pirsig suggests 'provisional' which, to me suggests > a better daisy than 'hypothetical'(Marsha). Provisional is pragmatically > grounded. Hypothetical is theothetically grounded. I like to believe I am > living DQ/sq and not, as Marsha and Mark suggest sq. That Quality is a directed betterness is pragmatically grounded, eh? Please explain that to me. What usefulness do you find which makes it pragmatic for you? In a recent post from Dan, he said that he thought the world was getting worse. Certainly Dan does not believe that MoQ is pragmatic. However, if you do find the tenants of MoQ useful, then why? If it is simply because Pirsig said it was so, then that is not pragmatic. That is just lazy. > > Good to hear from you Ron. Let me know what you think...and hoping for a > respons from Anthony. Don't hold your breath. I am still waiting for a reply too. You are so starry eyed about Ant, that I am begining to wonder why you are in this forum. Do you owe him money? Are you in his debt for a favor? > > ps: I will not appreciate a response from either of those two because they > are twittering a non Pirsig MoQ. I do not know what they are doing here. Well, I can understand that you do not want a response after that gibberish. Andre, if you had things your way, we would be shoveling mud out of a swamp. You are full of bravado and criticism, but have nothing to support your arguments. This is like terrorism where you take a shot and then hide away. Please explain how I am Nihilistic. I don't think you even know what the word means. Sounds like a word you picked up on the internet, and now you are trying to use it. Your MoQ is probably about as far from Pirsig as one can get, at least it seems so from your recent posts. I wouldn't know, however, since you never express your opinion on a description of Quality that is not some kind of march in a Pirsig parade. Your metaphysics is more like MoP (The Metaphysics of Pirsig). I think you belong in a site for "philosophology", where all that is done is rehash what Pirsig wrote about, and why he used the specific words and examples that he did (as if that will enlighten anybody about Quality). This is about the Metaphysics of Quality, not some forum where you vent your anger against someone who you have never met. Go kick your dog. Stop being so ignorant, read something. All the best, of course. Hang in there, it will get better. Mark ps: give me your best shot, I know you have it in you. Show me your intellect. > > > > 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
