dmb, Am I expected to defend against a "gnarly knot of a mess", "vacuous nihilism and relativism of the worst kind", "incoherent belief that the intellect is forever trapped in or identical to SOM" or the missing "repeated explanations as to the logical impossibility of this view."? And rhetorically ending with the statement "It's hateful and contemptuous of intellectual values." surely does demonstrate the highest level of your intellectual competency.
I think I'll pass. Marsha On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:37 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andre said to Marsha: > ...this position you have adopted is quite ridiculous and very un-Pirsig's > MoQ. You keep on having difficulties with the intellectual level. You keep on > bringing up this reification bit, you keep bringing up this ' object of > knowledge bit' , you keep on bringing up this static is ultimately empty bit. > You keep on holding on to the static as none other than dynamic, the term ' > latching' is something you do not accept nor understand. Your definition of > static patterns of quality is still a mess wrought with confusion and > contradiction. Low quality means ' insignificant'. To you intellect is still > SOM (a la Bodvar) and it shows now that you find everything to be > 'hypothetical' ... And your defense continues to be that ' in philosophy > there are as many of 'truths', on any given topic, as there are stars in the > sky.... > > > dmb says: > Right. Marsha's view is one great big gnarly knot of a mess. It would be a > huge task to untangle it all at once. It would probably be a full-time job > for about a week. But one thing is pretty clear, her conclusions amount to > relativism, nihilism and anti-intellectualism. She and Bodvar have both been > presented with a pile of evidence showing that their equation of SOM and > intellect cannot be right. Despite the fact that many philosophers - > including pragmatists like James, Dewey and Pirsig himself - have explicitly > rejected SOM, they still hold the incoherent belief that the intellect is > forever trapped in or identical to SOM. That's one of their most fatal errors > and they stick to it despite repeated explanations as to the logical > impossibility of this view. This view, in fact, means that it be impossible > to adopt or even conceive any other metaphysical construction, which would > mean that James, Dewey and Pirsig have done the impossible. To equate SOM and > the intellect is to > claim that the Metaphysics of Quality is not a metaphysical construct, is not > really an alternative to SOM. And, of course, if intellect is equal to SOM > and we're supposed to reject SOM, then we have also rejected intellect and > truth along with it. Now truth isn't just plural and provisional, it's > infinite like the stars in the sky and as fleeting as the wind. Now truth is > just whatever anyone says it is. Now truth is meaningless and philosophy is a > joke. > > This view is not just incoherent and incorrect, it's a moral nightmare. It's > vacuous nihilism and relativism of the worst kind. It's not just > anti-intellectual. It's hateful and contemptuous of intellectual values. > > > > 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
