> Dan:
> Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to be falling into a bit of
> redundancy here and that redundancy is leading you astray. Remember, ideas
> are patterns of value. Morals and quality are synonymous in the MOQ. I
> doubt anyone here only keeps an eye on logical consistency. But if a
> contributor consistently contradicts themselves it points to a lack of
> quality.
David responds:
I agree here. But why is there a lack of quality? Why does a contributor, in
your eyes, consistently contradict themselves? That's what I'm pointing
towards. Everyone has different values. So at some time or another - no matter
who you discuss anything with you will at some stage come upon a disagreement.
They value something which you don't which causes them to deem their words with
coherence, and you the opposite.
It can feel uncomfortable to discuss these values, these morals openly. It can
be difficult. But until we openly discuss them - and through that discussion we
care for the values of others - we try and understand the values of others -
and we explain our own values - then nothing will change - that's my point.
[Ron chimes in]:
Consistancy and clarity typically are a demonstration of a level of
understanding of a particular subject matter.
Inconsistancy and contradiction typically demonstrates a level of
misunderstanding. That is why, often, critical
thinkers will value contradiction in their concepts. NOT to rest on but as a
sure sign that they are probably
misunderstanding something. They pursue wisdom.
BUT
Then we have those who champion inconsistancy and contradiction it allows a
poor critical thinker to justify
their lack of skill and with relativly little effort, APPEAR wise.
The temperment exhibitied by the pursuit of understanding and meaning is
usually motivated
by the value of self reflection.
The temperment exhibited by the embrace of inconsistancy and contradiction is
usually motivated
by the value of self justification.
> Dan:
> Well, it seems (to me) that only Marsha and only dmb can answer those
> questions. So, what is there to discuss? Are you saying they should begin
> talking to themselves?
>
> Dan wrote also along the same lines:
> Well, you seem to be agreeing with me here. If we have to be open with
> ourselves, what is there to discuss? I am unsure you fully realize what
> you're saying here. A discussion is a consideration of a question by a
> group. What you seem to be advocating is an introspection, not a
> discussion. Is that right?
>
David responds:
No. I am advocating both. An open discussion between two people which includes
introspection is the best kind. If your values are better than mine - why is
that? Or are there other values which are better? Why do you have the values
which you do? Why do you deem them of value? We live in a society today where
people are almost frightened of openly discussing their values and morals for
fear of offending or appearing insensitive. But the values/morals of the
participants in a discussion are not irrelevant and to be actively avoided (as
is traditionally thought) - but are the *most* important part of a
philosophical discussion.
[Ron concludes]:
The conflict lies in the fact that introspection is not valued by all the
participants, those that value self justification
do so as a reactionary response to social level values and often dismiss
intellectual values on social level grounds
(a form of the philosophology arguement.) ie; anti-academic,
anti-authoritative, anti-intellectual, anti-value(not this-
not that). pro-relativism. They often seek to justify all responsibility for
their actions as mere illusionary social
conventions that lack any real value in experience.
Any that criticize their beliefs are immediately painted as trapped in "SOM"
thinking and dismissed, no reason or
explanation required because reason and explanation are illusionary social
conventions.
It requires no self reflection, no self correction, no expansion of reason,
meaning or understanding in order to
arrive at that feeling of superior understanding it enforces and supports the
rejection of social level values
with little change to their current collection of values and beliefs without
requiring any explanation or reason.
A virtualy unassailable position for those emotionally invested in it.
If you are a social reject, do'nt reflect, come to MoQ discuss, because here
you are really a genius, you do'nt have to
make "sense", society is wrong, not you. Self doesent exist, just a word that
society wants to hang all your mistakes
and poor behaviour on. You are not an asshole, you, are a genius in a
restrictive cage of society and language.
..
...
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
