Hi Ron, On 8/15/12, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, >> >> Ron said: >> Mark, I find it difficult to discern that we are talking about the same >> thing. Your post attacks Pirsigs >> criticism of scientific objectivism as a criticism of all science then >> tries >> to paint that criticism as a straw >> man and Pirsig as a foolish layman who really does not understand >> sceince. >> This makes you come off like a pompus egotistical ass that has really not >> took the time to >> carefully read the material. This indeed raises the hackles of those of >> us >> who have done the reading. > > Mark: > That you do not comprehend what I write does not mean we differ in > viewpoint. I will be the judge as to whether we agree or not, since > your posts are rather simplistic and two dimensional. I have yet to > see something creative coming from your pen. > > Ron replies: > I comprehend what you are saying I'm just not sure how it is applicable > to my statements nor Johns questions regarding Pirsigs levels. > The majority of your post was aimed at how Pirsig > criticizes science, and you go on from that.
Mark explains: What I was doing was placing Pirsig's examples within a Quality context. What he criticizes is the hold which science has taken, something I term Scientism (I did not make that up). For this reason I explained that Pirsig’s portrayal of science is not what you think. He is speaking of Scientism. If there was any criticism, it was in how you interpreted what Pirsig wrote. > > Mark: > In response to what you claim is "criticism" Pirsig I can state the > following. Nobody is more indebted to Pirsig than I. You are a > tag-along and while your posts are often interesting, they are pure > Western drivel. I would hazard to say that I have read both ZAMM and > Lila more times than you have. What is taken from such books are not > the words, but rather what those words stimulate. It appears to me > that they have not stimulated much in you since you keep referring to > the books as gospel. What is in these books is only a small part of > what is intended by Pirsig. There are way too many literalists in > this forum. > > Ron: > "What is in these books is only a small part of what is intended by > Pirsig." > Now THAT my freind is quite a load of bullshit. Mark, there is something > to be said for textual evidence in regard to a more accurate understanding > of the material, things like continuity and consistancy in meaning for > example items your interpretion seems to lack so much one must wonder if you > even read the books. Which I still doubt. Mark explains: Ron, let me ask you this: Is there more to music than the notes on a page? When you re-read a book by Pirsig do you always come away with the same idea as before? If not, how can you explain this since the words have not changed? If you like consistency, why would you read more than one book concerning MoQ? The books are meant to stimulate our imaginations, not tell us "the way things are". The books are inquiries, not proclamations. When I question something (inquiry) it means I am wondering about other possibilities. If I were to ask you to present to me your own personal inquiry into Morals, what do you think you would write? Wouldn't it be something personal? If you are claiming the same personal relationship with existence as Pirsig, then you are delusional. Pirsig is doing his best to explain what that relationship is. Words are never sufficient, not even close. Like I said, you are way too much of a literalist to ever be creative in the arena of philosophy. I had to learn to stop believing in what I learned to become a good scientist. If you have a counter argument to what I just said, then please present it. If not, this entire name calling is not appropriate. > > Mark actually tries to explain what he means: > .Pirsig rightly states that Scientism is way too powerful. Such a > religion is based on "promissory materialism" (read what Popper or > Eccles have to say on this to learn more). It is completely two > dimensional. Realizing this opened the door for neo-Cartesian duality > which separated the mind from the brain (read Eccles, who was a > neuroscientist). This is of course also standard Zen teaching, there > is a mind outside the brain. One can certainly criticize the displays > made by science and say that they are insufficient, however the > scientific method can also be used to explore the mystical (read > Occult Science by Rudolf Steiner, free from Kindle). The scientific > method is pattern recognition, pure and simple. As humans we have an > enormous capacity for such pattern recognition (or creation if you > will). > > Ron: > A re-statement of the obvious, no one is argueing against this except > for maybe the Zen assertion there is no mind/matter split in Zen > except the illusion one attempts to overcome. Mark explains: Well, at least you confer agreement to something. Do you know anything about Zen. Have you attended their services? Have you had long conversations with priests? What do you think the whole purpose of mediation is? What do you think Zazen is? Zen does not fit into the idealist camp where everything is idea. It demonstrates that ideas exist alongside one's observation of them. What illusion are you talking about? What is it an illusion of? By claiming that everything is illusion, one sits in extreme judgment. It is this judgment which destroys any hope for zazen. There are thoughts, and there is that which experiences the thoughts. Perhaps your Zen training is different to mine. Could you provide a paragraph or two to explain what you mean by : "the Zen assertion there is no mind/matter split in Zen except the illusion one attempts to overcome." In your own words of course. If you cannot, then just shut up, you are boring me. > > Mark: > If the fact that I live and breathe science makes me into an ass so > far as you are concerned, then how about you provide me with your > profession and I will say the same about you. Besides, from your > posts your pomposity stands clear. Just who do you think you are? > Are you God's gift to Pirsig? You are small minded and stuck. I pay > you a compliment and say that I agree with you, and all you respond > with is rubbish. Well, good luck with that. > > If you actually want to discuss philosophy, then I am all ears. Maybe > you have something to say about the interrelationship between DQ and > SQ. We can only hope. Try to relax and not be so reactive. Maybe > you are a fireman in real life, but there is no fire here. There is > nothing you need to stamp out. There is not even any smoke except > maybe between your ears. > > Ron: > Mark it has become quite clear to me that you really do not know what > philosophy is much less string together a coherent line of thought regarding > the > subject matter. > You sure are adept at bullshitting though. Exactly what are you basing your > rhetorical arguements on? Any textual evidence is being a literalist to you > and any > hard scientific examples have yet to enter in to your explanations. All we > keep getting is your "professional" opinion, What gives? if you indeed are a > scientist I dread to think what you might be working on. Because you sure are > lousy at explaining yourself. And it's not because you are sooo smart that > the rest of us simply can not comprehend you. > Mark retorts: Ron, it has become clear to me that you have no idea what Quality is. You claim to be adept at a metaphysics based on such, but it seems you are clueless. I bet you have a lot of considered opinions on ballet, as well, which people are breaking down your door to learn about. You should leave discussion of MoQ to those of us who approach it from a Quality paradigm. If you do claim to view the world through Quality, then please demonstrate such. Remember, it is a different way of looking at things. Being a way, one must walk it to demonstrate ability. If you consider yourself to be a philosopher of sorts, then why do you not provide posts with your philosophical thoughts? How am I to believe that you are not some 15 year old who is doing his best to keep up? With all this use of Wiki, it seems that many are still in high school. That I am lousy at explaining myself is because I assumed you had some notion of Quality. Just read Pirsig's books and really try to understand what he is trying to say. Forget the words and examples and concentrate on his intent behind these. You want everything to fit in a nice little box that you can put a ribbon on. Well sorry, it is just not that way. If you would take the time and try to understand what I am saying rather than simply boasting about your prowess it would help. Very rarely do you provide argument against what I am proposing. However, I give you the opportunity to explain why Zen is about overcoming illusions (and please don't throw some quote at me, explain it in your own words). Or alternatively why there is nothing more to books than the words therein. Or both if you feel so compelled. You should take some lessons on how philosophy is done. It is not simply the reiterations of some book that was written. It requires creativity; it requires critical thinking. Tell me, Ron, what have you added to MoQ lately? What peer reviewed breakthroughs have you brought about? Or is MoQ a done deal so far as you are concerned? What do you hope to contribute to MoQ, besides complaining about what somebody else writes? Kind regards, Mark .. > > .. > 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
