Hi dmb,
Alan Wallace also reported that W. James thought a future science of mind
should be based on introspective investigation. W.J. wrote “Introspective
observation is what we have to rely on first and foremost and always. I regard
th[e] belief [in introspection] as the most fundamental of all the postulates
of Psychology” All the intellectual/conceptual blathering that goes on is
based on the page and not any type of direct experience. There's a
contradiction for you. I doubt that W.J. would have thought very highly of
your whining.
And please present my statement accurately:
The “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and
impermanent static patterns: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
patterns and intellectual patterns of value flowing in the infinite field of
Dynamic Quality.
I have pointed out many times, it is not anti-intellectual or a contradiction
to understand that patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same
time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. Think of the
Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so
that the parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being
replaced...
If you are so concerned with dictionary definitions, why don't you lookup
'quality' and 'value' and see if it mentions either as being the foundation of
reality, or it mentions the "first cut" of either being into static and dynamic
aspects. So right from the get-go, with the Metaphysics of Quality, we are
beyond standard dictionary definitions. Philosophy often requires refining
terminology.
And to remind you of RMP's own words:
"Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since
Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of
Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity.
"It would be almost like a mathematical definition of randomness. The more you
try to say what randomness is the less random it becomes. Or 'zero,' or 'space'
for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with 'nothing.'
'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.' If he said
anything about the scientific nature of mystic understanding, science might
benefit but the actual mystic understanding would, if anything, be injured. If
he really wanted to do Quality a favor he should just leave it alone.
(RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 5)
Marsha
On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:44 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> Dave Thomas said to Dave Buchanan, February 20th:
> All your ranting to about this issue is what James characterizes as "vicious
> intellectualism."
>
>
> dmb says:
> Just for the record, vicious intellectualism or vicious abstractionism has
> nothing to do with the tone or tenor of criticism. The idea behind those
> phrases is a complaint about prioritizing concepts over empirical reality,
> putting ideas above reality. In the MOQ we see this idea is Pirsig's attack
> on Plato, particularly the way he made Quality (empirical reality)
> subordinate to Ideas, the way he subordinated the Good and elevated the True.
>
> As Charlene Seigfried puts it, paraphrasing William James, "abstractionism
> had become vicious already with Socrates and Plato, who deified
> conceptualization and denigrated the ever-changing flow of experience, thus
> forgetting and falsifying the origin of concepts as humanly constructed
> extracts from the temporal flux." (William James's Radical Reconstruction of
> Philosophy, 379.)
>
> Please notice how this quote also supports my contention that experience is
> the "ever-changing" part. Vicious intellectualism is vicious because of the
> way it DENIGRATES "THE EVER-CHANGING FLOW OF EXPERIENCE". James and
> Seigfried define vicious abstractionism in that quote. It says that Plato
> "deified conceptualization", which is to say he turned it into a god. The
> form of the Good not only turned Quality into a fixed and eternal Idea, it
> more or less evolves into the God of monotheism. This move, they say,
> "denigrated" the ever-changing flow of experience. That means an unfair
> criticism or inappropriate disparagement of empirical reality.
>
> See? Vicious intellectualism is a phrase that identifies the problem that
> James and Pirsig want to solve. In both cases, they want to reverse the
> mistaken priority by subordinating concepts to the flux of experience, by
> showing that static concepts are always secondary, always derived from the
> ever-changing flux of experience (DQ or Pure Experience).
>
> C'mon, be reasonable. Who is more credible on this topic? A professional
> academic philosopher like Charlene Siegfried or Marsha? The former has
> published books on the topic while the latter can't quite construct a proper
> sentence. There is no contest and no reason to doubt that Seigfried knows
> what she's talking about.
>
> And finally, there is no reason to think that James and Buddhism are mutually
> exclusive so that the MOQ can only be rightly compared to one or the other.
> In fact, at least one James scholar says quite explicitly that the Buddha
> himself was a pragmatist and a radical empiricist, which is what James and
> Pirsig call themselves. That's WHY it is so wrong-headed for Marsha to use
> Buddhism against James. Remember when Marsha used the biggest William James
> fan in the world in her attempts to belittle James? What does THAT tell you
> about the quality of Marsha's thought? It ain't pretty.
>
>
>
>
>
___
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
