Hello everyone On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > Dan: I remember Roger! Roger Parker. Great guy. And yes, Paul Turner added some real value to the discussion group. I appreciated his interest in Lila's Child too. I think we all go through a process when it comes to the MOQ. I know I did as well. My big 'ah ha!' moment was when Robert Pirsig told me how Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in the MOQ. Up until then, I saw experience as static quality. Looking back, there were clues all along but I pretty much ignored them. I recall that Roger telling me the same thing during one of our discussions but for some reason it didn't jell for me. Anyway, thanks for being so forthcoming. This list could stand more of that. > > > 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. > Dan: I have no idea what Ian is on about. I tried asking questions but all I got was nonsense for my trouble. > > 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? Dan: Good point. I am all for respect but come on. If someone writes the group with a load of low quality ideas it only seems charitable to attempt to point that out. Especially if we have been there and know what it takes to overcome such viewpoints. > 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. > Dan: Ha! Got to agree with you here. Sometimes I cannot even bring myself to answer posts as they are so obviously flawed there is no chance of redeeming any quality whatsoever. I remember going through that with Mark Smit or whatever his name was. The scientist. Right. I got to the point where I nearly unsubscribed to the discussion group I was that embarrassed to be associated with such crap. > > It takes a lot of restraint and discipline to be relatively civil in > criticizing this sort of thing. Dan: Absolutely. People accuse me of being a prick and an asshole but Lord if they ever knew what I really thought. I do attempt to achieve at least a veneer of civility here, up to a point. I haven't the patience of a Paul Turner or a Roger Parker. I realize it is a failing on my part. But we all have our failings. At least I don't kick my dog. Oh, wait a minute. I don't have a dog to kick, otherwise I might. > 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. > Dan: Well, I asked Ian what MORE he wants as he didn't make any suggestions. I am all for keeping things respectful. But again, there comes a point where I get very frustrated in having to repeat myself ad nauseum as if no one is reading what I write. I do attempt to keep my criticisms positive but again, I am sure even the Pope gets pissed off every once in a while. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
