Ian said to Dan:
... I just don't see anyone (other than dmb ironically ;-) "arguing in favor of
subjects experiencing objective reality".
Dan replied:
What? Really? Then I take it you haven't been reading any of the discussions
between David Harding and me, or between David Morey and me. They are both
pretty adamant about people experiencing static quality, which if you look at
it logically, breaks down to an independent reality existing apart from the
individual, or to a subject experiencing objective reality. In doing so, they
are elevating static quality as the central reality in the MOQ. David Harding
even admits to doing so. And if you have been reading dmb's posts in the
manner you suggest, then we must be reading things differently. I have never in
all the years here read him in that way.
dmb says:
Thanks Dan, but I did make that mistake too. It takes one to know one, right?
And I was once where they are now. It was Paul Turner who opened my eyes, in
fact, and I remember thanking him for it in Liverpool while he and I were
talking to Pirsig. Pirsig said, basically, "yep, I noticed that". I think Paul
has the chops to go professional if he wants to. It took a while to convince me
and another guy named Roger patiently tried over and over to show me that I was
still thinking in SOM terms. He was really good at it and he was as patient as
a saint but, sadly, it never clicked in my mind until after he left the forum.
Oh boy, would we have a conversation now. I'd begin by thanking him and
apologizing for my thickness. My point? I know what it's like to be Krimel or
the other Davids (Harding and Morey). Been there, done that. Maybe someday
they'll thank you, Dan. Who knows? Anything is possible.
Ian said:
I honestly still believe the whole long-running argument is simply a SOMist
language communication problem - that we ALL share since Aristotle -
particularly if we take the "critical" stance with those we are arguing
"against". Being more charitable I take a more "fluid integrative" view of
those I am debating "with". Critique against - is inherently SOMist.
Dan replied:
What you seem to be saying is that if someone is on a low quality journey we
who know better shouldn't criticize them or attempt to point the way to higher
quality ideas. By being 'charitable' we basically don't care whether or not
these folk gain any knowledge about the MOQ. Is that right? I will for the
moment assume there are those here with a greater grasp of the MOQ than others.
Perhaps that isn't charitable but life is like that. There are experts in
certain fields and then there are laypeople who may possess adequate knowledge
and yet they haven't acquired the ability of an expert who has spent tens of
thousands of hours honing their skills. Are you saying the experts here should
just shut up and take a more fluid integrative approach?
dmb says:
Well, I look at Mr. Charitable's short paragraph and wonder if he strained his
arm patting himself on the back. His main point seems to be, "Ian is a great
guy," as opposed to those stingy Aristotelean SOMists who argue or criticize.
"Critique against - is inherently SOMist," he says (self-servingly). How or why
argument and criticism are "inherently SOMist" is never explained or justified
in any way. It's totally obvious, I think, that Ian is just trying to make his
inability to deal with arguments and criticism into some kind of virtue.
But the moment you stop to think about it, hopefully, you can see what a load
of bullshit it is. Who, in their right mind, thinks it wrong or inappropriate
to argue, debate or critique ideas in a philosophical discussion group? What in
the world could be MORE appropriate, given the context, given the point and
purpose of such discussions? When you stop to think about it, Ian's assertion
is outrageous, totally implausible, face-saving, evasive bullshit. It's
despicable and openly contemptuous of intellectual. It makes me feel sick.
Seriously. I have a negative physical reaction to this kind of
anti-intellectual drivel. I think Pirsig is quite right to insist that truth,
science, and intellect are NOT amoral. I mean, it's not just stupidity but also
a kind of sleaziness that makes me want to take a shower. Yuk! I use the word
"drivel" (like drool or slobber) for a real reason, you know? It's like this
disgusting stuff is uncontrollably streaming out of his or her mouth.
It takes a lot of restraint and discipline to be relatively civil in
criticizing this sort of thing. The unspoken voice of my inner demons makes the
Furies look like fairies. You don't want to know what I really think of these
people personally and it's not really not relevant anyway. But the arguments,
debates, critiques - words in a row - that's all we get in a email-based
discussion group. That's all that there can be. To rule that out is just stupid
beyond belief. Think about it. That is a totally idiotic idea, maybe even the
stupidest objection I ever heard.
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
