Horse wrote:
I've got to say that I agree with DMB about the contradiction of terms within
your definition of self. If something is static or stable how can it be
ever-changing?
Marsha replied:
Patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and
their context are undergoing constant change.
dmb says:
Notice how Marsha's response to this criticism is to simply repeat the
contradiction that drew criticism in the first place?
It makes no sense to say patterns maintain a stable identity AND that patterns
undergo CONSTANT change. Obviously, stability and constant change are opposites
but Marsha is saying both of those things at the same time. 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...
Horse said:
If something is static or stable it tends not to change over time or if it does
change it changes slowly, thus retaining it's stability.
Marsha replied:
RMP is known as a Process philosopher, and process is change. Within the
interaction with an individual, a pattern is constantly changing as the context
changes and each pattern event rolls back into itself to be renewed. But maybe
read the essay on Whitehead and Pirsig by Andrew Sneddon. Value is all about
activity.
dmb says:
The same contradiction appears yet again. While it's true that the MOQ can
rightly be called a form of process philosophy, this does not mean that it's
okay to assert contradictory nonsense and it certainly doesn't work as a way to
deny the importance of William James's pragmatism or radical empiricism within
the MOQ. In fact, James is considered to be among the founders of that school
too. Robert Richardson, James's biographer, puts it like this...
"Alfred North Whitehead attributed to James 'the inauguration of a new state in
philosophy,' and he explicitly contrasted "Does Consciousness Exist" to
Descartes' Discourse on Method: 'James clears the stage of the old
paraphernalia; or rather he entirely alters its lighting'. James's radical
empiricism was an integral part of the early-twentieth century revolution that
swept through politics, thought, and sensibility. Technical and abstract though
the two essays may be, they mark the modern abandonment of certain aspects of
classical Western philosophy. James transfers our attention FROM SUBSTANCE TO
PROCESS, from a concept of self to the process of selving, from the concepts of
truth to the process of truing, from a trust in concepts to an interest in
percepts or perceptions. James is arguing that it is relations between things
that matter, not objects or subjects as such. If by relativism we mean
evaluating things by their relations to other things, then this is relativis
m, though the better term is relationism. The result of James's radical
empiricism is to move the modern mind away from 17th century Cartesian dualism
and toward what we can call process philosophy; to wean us away from falling
back on conceptions and to encourage us to trust our perceptions; to admit
feelings to full standing, along with ideas, as aspects of rationality."
Horse said:
Patterns of value that are stable persist over time which would appear to be
the antithesis of your definition.
Marsha replied:
I stress ever-changing because I like the Buddhist perspective, but it would be
the same within process philosophy.
dmb says:
There is nothing wrong with bringing in Buddhism or process philosophy. The
problem is you incoherent, contradictory claim about static patterns. Why are
you pretending that logical errors don't matter? Do you imagine that Buddhism
gives us permission to say stupid things? Does process philosophy give you an
exemption from the basic rules of grammar. Do either of them grant you immunity
from the improper use of terms? No, of course not. Mentioning these things is
an irrelevant smoke screen. When the fog clears your contradictory nonsense
will still be sitting there untouched, just as ugly and wrong as before.
Horse said:
If you insist that static patterns of value are ever changing - i.e. stable
patterns are unstable - would you mind showing how you manage to overcome what
appears to be an inconsistency in your definition. I think I see what you're
getting at but this part of your definition just doesn't appear to make sense
and repeating it over and over offers no explanation.
Marsha replied:
I suppose it is my poor attempt at defending my position when it is being
attacked. I am not attacking anyone and invite other perspectives. I realize
different points-of-view will appeal to different people.
dmb says:
As I see it, contradictory nonsense doesn't really count as a position. In
order to see the contrast between two rival positions, both of those
perspectives have to be intelligible enough to determine what they actually
are. A meaningless string of words is not a position or a perspective from your
meaningless salad of words. Beyond the contradictions, your definition is also
excessively verbose, redundant, grammatically incorrect and totally unfocused.
It's a piece of hackery from which no intelligible point of view can be
discerned. How can such a thing appeal to any person?
When static patterns are defined as ever-changing, the element of stability is
totally eliminated from the MOQ and would result in a rather disastrous
situation in which chaos and degeneracy reign supreme. The MOQ's evolutionary
morality goes right out the window. The static pattens that make up the self
are put into flux so that the self would dissolve or evaporate. But in fact the
whole system of morality depends on competing static values, the conflict
between static values. The difference good and evil would be erased. Without
this stability, it would be impossible to tell the difference between
intellectual values and childish hedonism, the difference between human rights
and fascist genocide would just be a matter of taste.
The fact that Marsha is totally unconcerned with the stable and the static only
shows a profound ignorance as to the larger situation in which we find
ourselves.
"Where has he been during this whole century? That's what this whole century's
been about, this struggle between intellectual and social patterns. That's the
theme song of the twentieth century. Is society going to dominate intellect or
is intellect going to dominate society? And if society wins, what's going to be
left of intellect? And if intellect wins what's going to be left of society?
That was the thing that this evolutionary morality brought out clearer than
anything else. Intellect is not an extension of society any more than society
is an extension of biology. Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so at
war with society, seeking to subjugate society, to put Society under lock and
key. An evolutionary morality says it is moral for intellect to do so, but it
also contains a warning: Just as a society that weakens its people's physical
health endangers its own stability, so does an intellectual pattern that
weakens and destroys the health of its social base also
endanger its own stability.
Better to say "has endangered." It's already happened. This has been a century
of fantastic intellectual growth and fantastic social destruction. The only
question is how long this process can keep on."
"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological
life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that established the
supremacy of the social order over biological life-conventional morals
-proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third,
there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order
over the social. What was emerging was that the static patterns that hold one
level of organization together are often the same patterns that another level
of organization must fight to maintain its own existence. Morality is not a
simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of conflicting patterns of
values. This conflict is the residue of evolution. As new patterns evolve they
come into conflict with old ones. Each stage of evolution creates in its wake a
wash of problems.
It's out of this struggle between conflicting static patterns that the concepts
of good and evil arise. Thus, the evil of disease which the doctor is
absolutely morally committed to stop is not an evil at all within the germ's
lower static pattern of morality. The germ is making a moral effort to stave
off its own destruction by lower-level inorganic forces of evil." (Lila Ch 13)
Ultimately, Marsha's attitude is hateful and irresponsible and amoral. And the
actual conceptual content is just incoherent drivel. It's an embarrassment.
What did Robert Pirsig ever do to Marsha such that she would abuse his work
like this? What did the English language ever do to deserve this torture?
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
