On 2/22/13 11:54 AM, "David Buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote:
As I said David, I'm done arguing with you over nothing. Dave > > Dave Thomas said to David Buchanan:" > > You've already admitted that static patterns of quality change. Now you want > to quibble about the "ever" part of "ever changing." > > > > dmb says: > So now I want to quibble about the "ever" part!?! No, Dave. This is not a new > quibble. It is the main point. It is PRECISELY the "ever" part of > "ever-changing" that is as issue. That is the heart and soul of my criticism. > Also, I am NOT harping on this contradiction in order to make a case that > static patterns can NEVER change. In fact, it was Plato who asserted that > "Ideas" are never-changing and that's what James and Pirsig attack as vicious > intellectualism. That's what I just said, in fact, in the post you're > supposedly responding to. Look, I already said so.... > > [Copied and pasted from below]: "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 ..turned > Quality into a fixed and eternal Idea," > > David Thomas also said: > ...these so called "static" patterns change all the time. In fact one of main > premises of James radical empiricism was created to account for these changes. > And you know it. > > Buchanan says: > Yea, I know. That's why your accusation is false. I have never even suggested > that static patterns can NEVER change. The whole deal with static patterns is > that they evolve. That's crucial to the MOQ's definition of the self. Static > patterns preserve the evolutionary advances of the past and they serve as the > launch pad for evolutionary advances into the future. This occurs on a > collective, cultural level and within our individual developmental paths. > Lila's battle is everybody's battle. She's engaged in an evolutionary struggle > against the static patterns of her own life. We see this in the pragmatic > theory of truth as well, wherein truths are provisional and plural, not > eternal or singular. We see this in the creative moves in the thinking of > Pirsig and James too, both of whom effected a "Copernican revolution" and a > "radical reconstruction of philosophy". But they also both insist that the > meanings and definitions of words are public property, that "you can't reason > withou > t them" without "ungearing yourself from the whole a mankind". If you think > you can step outside of this mythos, Pirsig says, then you don't understand > what the mythos is. > > > Dave Thomas said: > Pragmatism suggests that when two points are for all practical purposes the > same, one should stop arguing. > > > dmb says: > That's true but it does NOT apply to this case because there are very > important practical differences at stake here. The differerence between these > "two points" is nothing other than the difference between using contradictory > language and NOT using contradictory language. It's the difference between > making sense and positing nonsense. > > > > Dave Thomas said: > ...Marsha's saying, "ever changing static patterns" does nothing to destroy > Pirsig's metaphysics because over time our ideas, concepts, words, and > definitions do change sometimes very slowly, sometimes blindingly fast. > > > Buchanan says: > No, Dave. It simply doesn't follow because there is nothing contradictory > about static patterns changing over time. That's just what evolution means. > But it is contradictory to say static patterns are EVER changing. Again, it is > the use of the term "ever" that has always been the issue. That is my ONE AND > ONLY point. That's the criticism that remains even after years and years of > explanation as to why that is such an error. To address that, of course, you > have to comprehend it first. I've seen no proper response to that point, and > that's the only point. Addressing anything else in response is just an > irrelevant distraction. > > > > >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> 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 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
