Hi Arlo, > [David] > Do you know what's good Arlo - before you intellectually analyse and run it > against a bunch of logical rules such as 'consistency' and 'validity'? > > [Arlo] > Depends. I've read ideas that I thought sounded good on first listen, but > when I slowed down and went over what was being said more carefully I changed > my opinion drastically. The question remains, what is the role of > 'consistency' and 'validity' on the intellectual level? In a philosophy > forum, are they important? Are they less important in a pub or at an AA > meeting?
[David] That there's a created dichotomy between values and intellectual consistency doesn't mean that we ought to support just one or the other. I'm pointing to that point *before* we begin talking consistency and validity. With such a long cultural history of dialectical discussion - it's easy to forget that values exist and actually *create* our opinions about things. A disagreement between two people is just as much a question of what they value as the logic which they create as a *result* of these values. > [David] > Arlo, your preferences are your values. Some values are naturally better > than others. As we all know what's good - until these values are discussed - > we cannot know which values are better or worse. > > [Arlo] > Not sure the point here, I mean, yeah, until two ideas are contrasted we > cannot know which are better or worse. Right. Is this where 'consistency' and > 'validity' come into play, in your opinion? Or still not so much? [David] Yes. Consistency and validity are created by the values of interlocutor. A full explanation of these values draws out differences between two people just as much as a discussion of how clear their logic is. In fact, I think that the values are more important as they create the logic to begin with. > > [David] > So that's the whole point of everything. Your values are the whole > enchilada. > > [Arlo] > Yes, but the enchilada needs a context. Its one thing to say "you can think > whatever you want" in a pub, is it another to say it in a classroom? Or a > philosophy forum? [David] Philosophy is a question of 'why'. Why do you do what you do? Why is it good to think x over y or vice versa? There are no 'false' ideas. There is no one 'true' answer. Just a whole bunch of quality ideas. Some of them good. Some of them not so good. Absolutely philosophy is good to discuss. Absolutely, logical consistency is an important thing. But really the goal is Quality, not truth. Don't you agree? > > [David] > "Hi Marsha and Arlo, *Why* do you value the idea that patterns constantly > change and the the intellectual level is made up of butterflies and candy > apples? Please show me why those ideas are good? I'm open to those ideas > being better than what I think.. " > > [Arlo] > Is that how Pirsig responded to the Chairman? I'm glad you raised this because it's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about.. "In class, the Professor of Philosophy, noting Phædrus' apparent good behavior and diligence, has decided he may not be such a bad student after all. This is a second mistake. He has decided to play a little game with Phædrus by asking him what he thinks of cookery. Socrates has demonstrated to Gorgias that both rhetoric and cooking are branches of pandering...pimping...because they appeal to the emotions rather than true knowledge. In response to the Professor's question, Phædrus gives Socrates' answer that cookery is a branch of pandering. There's a titter from one of the women in the class which displeases Phædrus because he knows the Professor is trying for a dialectical hold on him similar to the kind Socrates gets on his opponents, and his answer is not intended to be funny but simply to throw off the dialectical hold the Professor is trying to get. Phædrus is quite ready to recite in detail the exact arguments Socrates uses to establish this view. "Phædrus asks, "You mean my personal opinion?" For months now, since the innocent student disappeared, there have been no personal opinions ventured in this class. "Yaaas," the Professor says. Phædrus is silent and tries to work out an answer. Everyone is waiting. His thoughts move up to lightning speed, winnowing through the dialectic, playing one argumentative chess opening after another, seeing that each one loses, and moving to the next one, faster and faster...but all the class witnesses is silence. Finally, in embarrassment, the Professor drops the question and begins the lecture. But Phædrus doesn't hear the lecture. His mind races on and on, through the permutations of the dialectic, on and on, hitting things, finding new branches and sub-branches, exploding with anger at each new discovery of the viciousness and meanness and lowness of this "art" called dialectic. The Professor, looking at his expression, becomes quite alarmed, and continues the lecture in a kind of panic. Phædrus' mind races on and on and then on further, seeing now at last a kind of evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched in himself, which pretends to try to understand love and beauty and truth and wisdom but whose real purpose is never to understand them, whose real purpose is always to usurp them and enthrone itself. Dialectic...the usurper. That is what he sees. The parvenu, muscling in on all that is Good and seeking to contain it and control it. Evil. The Professor calls the lecture to an early end and leaves the room hurriedly. After the students have filed out silently Phædrus sits alone at the huge round table until the sun through the sooty air beyond the window disappears and the room becomes grey and then dark." As truth as its goal, it's easy to see how dialectic can be a lost art. > The conflict between Marsha and DMB has little to do with opportunities to > present ideas. The conflict continues to be centered on the SOL view of the > intellectual level, and the incoherence and inconsistency necessary to > maintain the SOL position. They can sling names back and forth all day, it > matters nothing to me, but if you think this central conflict is unimportant, > or simply a matter of preference, you are mistaken. > > By the way, why are you (and Ian, calling you out on this too) coming down on > DMB for whatever disrespect or emotionally-charged rhetoric he levels against > Marsha, but seeing Marsha almost like some innocent victim. She dishes it out > just as venomously, and not just in retaliation, she is at least as guilty as > he is on these charges, so how about a little 'consistency' in condemning > equally in Marsha what you seem to think is just DMB. [David] Please point out to me where you see me condemning dmb more than Marsha? I don't see it. In fact, I happen to think dmb's posts are amongst the highest quality on here. I just also happen to think that there's a reason why the disagreement between them has continued for so long relatively unchanged. It's because there are values which underlie the differences between them which are never discussed. Values, not logic, create the differences in outlook between them. Values create the differences between all things and people. The more people talk about, and examine, their values and the values of others - the better. > [David] > We get so lost these days in dialectical and logical discussion that we > forget that the goal is Quality and to become better people. Folks aren't > going to change their mind if you just show them how wrong they are. They're > only going to change their mind if you can show them something better. > > [Arlo] > This gave me a bit of a chuckle. Yes, you are right, but saying it like this > makes it sounds so simple. And I think a large part of DMB's frustration is > that how many times can you parade "something better" out to only be slapped > back with incoherence and inconsistency before your patience wears out. I > mean, we all strive for the patience of Buddha, but I wonder if even he > wouldn't want to just say "that's just fucking stupid" every now and then. [David] Of course we would. But does that solve anything? Does the person your calling stupid suddenly become intelligent by your saying it? Confronting values isn't easy. That's why most people never do it. If dmb truly is parading something better - and Marsha isn't accepting it, then there's a reason why she's not accepting it. With values as the ground stuff of all things - then if dmb is truly presenting something better and Marsha doesn't agree then this means that there are values blocking Marsha's view of that better thing. Why does Marsha not see value in what dmb is saying? What is it that she values which dmb doesn't? I think it helps to ask folks why they don't think an idea is good. It also certainly helps if those in the philosophical discussion are willing to question themselves and provide a clear and coherent answer as well.. But if they don't - Why is that? See how this goes? But this is true not just of dmb, but of Marsha's role in the discussion as well. Clearly dmb doesn't accept her ideas - why is that? And if Marsha (as she has said repeatedly) isn't interested in dmb's ideas? Why is that? Our goal is Quality - not truth and I rarely agree with Ian - but on this I do - 'We all seem to be saying that Quality is the goal but few of us have actually changed our behaviour to match this stated goal.' > [David] > Everything is quality - including ideas. Some ideas are better than others. > Why some ideas are better than others is open to continual discussion and > revision as we become more intelligent as a result of our openness to see, > not only the values of others, but the values we hold ourselves. There is no > need to constrain. Quality speaks for itself. > > [Arlo] > The problem is that "constraint" also brings "focus". Free for alls are nice, > but they seldom lead to anything. I mean, we do constrain simply by saying > posts must be about Pirsig's ideas. Should we remove that constraint? If I > say "Pirsig advocates child abuse", should I be permitted to say this > repeatedly, for years, in a forum that is archived, without anyone taking > critical exception to it? > > But this is, I think, another conflict here. Some people see the MD as a > philosophy forum, others as a social club. Maybe it can be both, but I not > without some defining boundaries, otherwise just open the forum up, rename it > "OD" and let's stop pretending we are here to talk about Pirsig's philosophy > altogether. [David] Yes. I actually agree with you here. Constraints and rules do allow for more creativity and allow a latch for further improvement. MD already has rules - like Ian, are you not happy with the ones which are setup currently? Thanks Arlo, I appreciate your honesty. -David. 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
