Just one small comment David. I'm not "unhappy" with the existing rules - I posted that alternative set from elsewhere simply to reinforce that there is really only one rule. "Respect". Ian On 26 Apr 2013 01:25, "David Harding" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > 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
