Hi dmb,
On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:05 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha wrote: > "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of > quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic > Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." (LILA, Chapter 12) > > How does this work for those of you who would like to make static patterns of > value synonymous with truth? ---To the extent that one's behavior is > controlled by truths it is without choice.--- Hmmmm? > > AND earlier Marsha said to 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. > > > dmb says: > At one moment you pretend that my accusations of anti-intellectualism are > nothing more than rhetoric and in the next moment you're happy to make a case > that truth means being controlled, that it'll keep you from being free. Marsha: I merely presented a RMP quote, where I exchanged 'static patterns of quality' for the word 'truth' to see if it would work as a synonym. I didn't make a case for anything, except that it doesn't work to well as a synonym. > dmb: > I think you have hereby demonstrated your anti-intellectualism. If you don't > see that you suffer from a great confusion and/or you are not capable of > being honest. Either way, you're talking out both sides of your ass. What a > mess. Marsha: What I wrote concerning your post to Andre (full comments below) was another typical, affected dmb opinion piece! Your post was a bogus, prejudicial reaction to premises you failed to present, supporting evidence you failed to provide, a conclusion you failed to reach and the logical argument you failed to make. 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 i s 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
