Hi Mark, > David makes some interesting claims. Hopefully he can provide some > examples where my writings are devoid of his "intellectual > perspective". > > A good question would be: What is the intellect? Certainly the use of > words for description of one's awareness is an intellectual effort. > If I understand David's remarks, he would compartmentalize the use of > the intellect in certain ways. I would be curious what boundaries he > would place around the intellectual perspective. It even seems like > he considers the intellect to be more than a tool.
I do not consider the intellect to be more than a tool. This looks like a case of the old adage that we feat that in others that which we fear most in ourselves… Look out for Mark using the intellect as more than a tool everyone! > Certainly the intellect is more than taking what one is given and > simply expanding on it. The intellect is used for asking the right > questions, looking for data (which is neutral) and forming the best > model by which to analyze such data (which could be experience). It > is also used for creativity in presenting things which are completely > new. I am not sure what David's background is in, but I fail to see > much critical thinking in his writings. It seems his efforts are more > devoted to trying to control the conversation. Once again, we fear that in others that which we fear most in ourselves… Look out for Mark trying to control the conversation everyone! >> Words - they can describe a great many things. We humans use them from the >> perspective of different values as well.. >> >> We can use them from the perspective of biological patterns: "Oh yes that's >> goood!" - social patterns: "Gesundheit" - intellectual patterns: "E = >> MC^2" and Dynamic Quality "Not this, not that." > > Mark: > That David would claim a distinction between values and other > perspectives indicates that he does not understand MOQ. It would seem > that he claims that the use of words falls into different levels. > This would indicate that he does not understand what the levels > symbolize. What he terms biological patterns are intellectual > constructs. The biological level does not have words. Words are used > by the social level to enable group consciousness. These social level > derived words integrate into our personal consciousness and are used > to exchange ideas. The intellectual level uses social level-derived > words, but they do not come from the intellectual level. This is like saying ants have a 'society' because they work together. It does nothing to improve our understanding of a society.. Likewise, to say that all language is 'social' because we use it communicate with other people, this tells us nothing about language. As I explained, languages can be used from the perspective of the biological, social and intellectual levels. It can also be used from the 'mystic level' to point to DQ. As you admitted, the intellectual level uses the socially derived languages, so this actually undercuts your whole argument. >> David: >> Bad things happen however, when we claim to speak from one perspective, but >> are actually speaking from another. The most common misunderstanding on >> this philosophy forum is when mystics such as Mark and Marsha claim to be >> speaking from the perspective of the intellect but are actually speaking >> from the perspective of Dynamic Quality. This results in ugly mysticism >> which doesn't end up pointing to DQ at all and creates incoherence on the >> intellectual level. > > Mark: > This idea of perspective that David brings in is interesting, and I am > not exactly sure what he means, but I will do my best to interpret. > Perhaps he means that from whence we speak, or the awareness from > which we speak. In this case, it can be said that we all speak from > the mystical. Dynamic Quality cannot be considered a perspective (if > I understand David's meaning). We do not have dynamic or static > "perspectives", since that would not make sense in terms of MOQ. Speak for yourself Mark. This shows your misunderstand and exactly why I wrote this post. You think that everything is a description of the mystical level… or DQ. Not everything is a description of DQ. There is a whole metaphysics worth of static quality levels which language can be used from the perspective of… > David: >> To be clear - a philosophical forum, by definition, is interested in one of >> these levels only - the intellectual level. The intellect doesn't like >> undefined things. Talking intellectually is itself actually a form of >> degeneracy. > > Mark: This philosphical forum is interested in discussing all of the > levels. It is guided by the intellectual level. Well here we agree. > David: > This is admitted by Pirsig where he writes: >> >> "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate >> activity." >> >> If that was the end of the story, then writing an intellectual Metaphysics >> would be something one ought not do. But, according to Pirsig, that isn't >> the end of the story.. >> >> "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with >> fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to >> whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for >> being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and >> writing metaphysics is a part of life." >> >> So Pirsig proceeds to outline the intellectual philosophy of the MOQ - thus >> embracing the degeneracy of the intellect and destroying the fundamental >> undefined source of all things with fixed metaphysical meanings. > > Mark: > David clearly has a misconception of what Pirsig is trying to teach. > What he is saying is that the words of metaphysics should not be > confused with what they are referring to. You are projecting Mark. I am saying the opposite to this. Once again, this is why I wrote this post. Because you think that all words must be a description of DQ. Ultimately, you're right. But this is a philosophical discussion board. We aren't here to talk 'ultimately'. We are here to speak from the perspective of the intellect. And from the perspective of the intellect, words refer to the *static quality* they represent. > The only way in which > metaphysics becomes degenerate is if the words used are taken > literally and as a complete description. There are many involved in > this forum that have this problem with the literal. The “pollution” > of mistaking words for things in themselves is what Pirsig is > cautioning against. That David thinks the discussion of metaphysics > is destructive suggests that he has not understood what Pirsig is > presenting. And this shows your misunderstanding Mark. Pirsig is not trying to *Avoid* polluting the mystical reality of the world. He claims literally, that this is impossible and an attempt to avoid doing so, as you do, is a form of pollution itself. This is why he wrote Lila. Exactly because he knows that words pollute the mystical reality of the world and that there is value in doing so. > The Metaphysics of Quality is an introduction to a method for becoming > aware of the world as value. This metaphysics is presented as a > doorway into the world of Quality. That David claims that the > intellectual is destructive suggests that he has no idea what Quality > is, and how one can get there. That he would subscribe to an > “undefined source” is purely religious and has no place in a > metaphysical discussion. He would appear to hold such "undefined > source" as some elevated form of being. Why doesn't he just say God, > instead of "undefined source"? For that is what God is. That is what undefined Good is. I'm not religious in the sense of there being some type of anthropomorphic deity however the undefined source is indeed the source of all things. The MOQ, the same as religion, emphasises the importance of becoming a better person.. You don't want to become a better person? >> Now, if Marsha and Mark would like to avoid ruining the undefined source of >> all things with fixed metaphysical meanings then I suggest that they stop >> talking, cease existing, and erase any thought of their existence from the >> heads of everyone they have ever encountered. If they cannot do this, then >> please either join a Zen group and discuss mysticism there or embrace your >> inner intellectual degenerate and accept that your words are definitions >> which attempt to describe reality with fixed metaphysical meanings. Or >> ideally, do both. > > David is fearful that I might "ruin" the undefined source of all > things. He must believe that I have some divine power. Each and > every word we use has a meaning. If we say that something is > "undefined" that also has a meaning. The purpose of MOQ is to use the > premise of Quality to describe an awareness in metaphysical terms. > Perhaps David should reword his endeavor to the "Metaphysics of the > Undefined". Then he can build a church to house his writings. > Discussing something such as Quality does not destroy it. Quite to > the contrary, it promotes it. Once again, your misunderstanding of my argument here points to your misunderstanding of the MOQ. You conflate intellectual quality with Dynamic Quality. Discussing Quality does destroy the mystical Dynamic Quality. This is confirmed in Lila where Pirsig writes: "Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try?" The reason why we try is because it is intellectually valuable to do so and as this above statement shows, this is very much *not* good for the undefined mystic reality of the world. > Pirsig has written two books about > Quality. If David had his way he would burn all copies of these. > Perhaps he should complain directly to Pirsig and tell him to stop > talking, cease existing, and erase any thought of existence from his > head. I am sure that Pirsig would laugh in his face. If David does > not want to discuss Quality using well defined words, then he is in > the wrong forum. That he is worried about destroying Quality is quite > a shock to me. I thought he understood MOQ. Not at all Mark. Your failure to distinguish between intellectual quality and Dynamic Quality results in this confusion. I am saying it is intellectually very valuable to write a metaphysics. This is why RMP writes the book. However, what it does no favours for is the ultimately mystic nature of the universe. In fact, a metaphysics destroys the ultimately mystic nature of the universe. Thanks Mark, -David. 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
