dmb, I do not accept your complaints or your self proclaimed intellectual competency. When I first arrived at the MD, I mistook your snarkiness for intelligence, but that didn't last long.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:05 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not really talking to you anymore. I'm just talking ABOUT you to others. > Why? Because you just can't hear what I'm saying anyway, so why should I > bother? That's not really the attitude of a big boy, but I accept you decision. Marsha --- On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:05 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha said to dmb: > > ... 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. > > > dmb says: > > Yes, I know you keep saying that over and over and over again. But that means > nothing. It is contradictory no matter how many you say it. > > > > Marsha said: > > 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. > > > > dmb says: > > I'm concerned with the definitions of these terms simply because you are > misusing these terms. Misuse of the terms is the issue and so standard > definitions of those terms becomes important. > > > To say that Quality or value is the foundation of reality is not to define > Quality, which is prohibited by the MOQ anyway. It is a metaphysical claim > and dictionaries just don't help us with something that. My criticism is much > more basic. It's about using words badly. It's about contradictory sentences. > It's about using words to mean the opposite of what they mean every other > speaking of English. It's not about mysticism. It's just about grammar. > > > Marsha said: > > So right from the get-go, with the Metaphysics of Quality, we are beyond > standard dictionary definitions. Philosophy often requires refining > terminology. > > > dmb says: > > Your contradictions are quite the opposite of "refining" the terminology. You > are confusing and conflating the terminology. It is Quality itself that "is > essentially outside definition" but metaphysics isn't like that. In the same > breathe, Pirsig also says that there is no metaphysics or any kind of > reasoning without definitions. In the same breathe, he says "metaphysics is > essentially a kind of dialectical definition". He says this in several > different ways. "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason > without them." (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.) "A metaphysics must be > divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." (Pirsig > in Lila, page 64.) You're incorrectly and quite irrationally using the > undefinable nature of Dynamic Quality to defy the meaning of ordinary, > definable concepts. DQ does not grant anyone permission to spew contradictory > nonsense. The mystic reality is not definable but that doesn't prohibit us > from defining o ur terms or being clear about what concepts mean. > > > You have no idea how confused you've made all this. No idea. It's a complete > train wreck and there is no way it could make sense to anyone who knows what > they're talking about. Apparently, you're not even understanding what the > topic is. I keep complaining about contradictory phrases and you keep talking > about anything but that. But that's okay. I'm not really talking to you > anymore. I'm just talking ABOUT you to others. Why? Because you just can't > hear what I'm saying anyway, so why should I bother? > > > > > > > > > > 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
