David Harding to DMB (out of context) David responds: Right I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment dmb.
I might as well mention what I mentioned to Arlo as well - there is an important distinction (which I feel a few members on this forum could heed) between talking intellectually *about* the levels and talking from the perspective of each of the levels.. The biggest offender in this regard is the distinction between DQ and intellectual quality. I have no problems with folks demonstrating DQ on here(so long as they avoid sq :-) ). But the issues begin when they fail to realise that they are talking *from* the perspective of DQ and not intellectually *about* DQ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrie Probably my mistake, but this statement makes Pirsig &the intellect 'itself' the biggest offender here, Its a very condensed statement full of Copperfieldalike artefacts. when they 'Fail to realise' ......inducing our trail by jury. This is not an attack or an ambush, mr Harding.Clearly you are a very sharp thinker and a talented inductor. For example. inducing the term 'value' 4 times in one sentence and 12 times more in one posting without nessecity ;;;autosuggestion by inductive stimuli. Inductive reasoning leads to the dark side, yoda says in a deductive way, yoda likes the deductive side.(kleenex now) 2013/4/27 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > dmb said: > According to SOM, intellect and values are two different things - and that > is the problem with SOM. The MOQ, by CONTRAST, is what you get with the > formal recognition of Quality in the operations of intellect AND the MOQ > says that intellectual truths are the most evolved, most dynamic and most > moral kind of static value. It is a species of the good, subordinate only > to DQ itself. ...My complaints about the incoherence of "ever-changing > static patterns" are NOT based on the belief that logic is supreme or that > definitions give us the essential truth of reality, of course. They are > based on the totally uncontroversial "belief" that incoherence in thought > and speech is bad. How is that even debatable? Of course it's no good to be > logically inconsistent. What could be more obvious? If intellect is an art > form, then using the key philosophical terms in a contradictory way will > mark you as a hack, as a very bad artist. It's like the would-be novelist > who doesn't understand drama or grammar. There's not much chance they're > gonna produce anything artful. > > > David Harding replied: > Right. But what is intellectual consistency? That is - being consistent > with experience. What is experience but a bunch of values? Someone > doesn't expound things thinking they're being inconsistent. They'll > expound things based on the values which they hold. If you see a > contradiction in what someone writes and they don't acknowledge it or do > not see value in that contradiction then there is a *reason* why. That > *reason* is what's important. You could go blue in the face saying how > inconsistent someone is but if they do not value the distinctions which are > created and to which you are explaining they are being inconsistent about > then nothing will change. The important thing isn't the inconsistency - > but the values of the participants of the discussion. [...] Most unsolved > disagreements between two people are a result of not of bad logic (though > it certainly plays a role) but a difference of values. The values are the > important thing - not the logic behind the thinking. The one informs the > other. Unless you can show someone something better - then nothing will > change… There's a reason why folks might sometimes appear to refuse to see > what you do… Why is that? That's the most important question... > > > > dmb says: > Seems to me that this is quite wrong and it is a result of the same > contradiction I've been complaining about all along. It re-introduces a > value-free intellect and then pits that against the MOQ's values. It > equates the MOQ's intellectual level with SOM, which the MOQ opposes and > rejects. You keep breezing right past this point, David. Intellectual > values are values. Truth is a species of the good. SOM is NOT equal to > intellect but Marsha thinks it is and that is why she rejects it. The > result of her contradictory error (ever-changing static patterns) is to > reject intellectual values, to reject the MOQ's highest level of static > morality. I can't know what it is that Marsha does value or hold dear but > anyone can see that she is full of contempt when it comes to studying other > philosophers, contemptuous of academia, of textual evidence, of logical > consistency and she even has a dismissive attitude to dictionaries and > encyclopedia. You know, words are cages, kill all intellectual patterns, > metaphysics is inherently immoral, etc., etc.. > > Why does Marsha have such a contemptuous attitude toward intellectual > values? I don't know. Sour grapes, I guess. It takes all kinds to make the > world go around and nobody is required to join a philosophical discussion > group. Marsha can be an anti-intellectual, new-age flake if she wants to. > She can join a neo-Nazi gun club or run away with circus but why in the > world would she want participate in an intellectual discussion? If she > really thinks metaphysics is immoral, why is she here? If morality is > served by killing all intellectual patterns, then why not join a monastery > and take a vow of silence? Is it really important that we understand WHY > she is intellectually nowhere? Isn't it enough to know THAT she does not > see intellectual value? I think so, and that much has been amply > demonstrated. Like the title character that she bizarrely admires, she's > just oblivious to that kind of quality. A person like that simply has no > business being in a place like this. > > The basic problem is a lack of clarity as to what Pirsig is actually > rejecting. If Pirsig is rejecting SOM for the purpose of improving and > expanding rationality itself, then obviously it's going to create quite a > mess to equate SOM with rationality itself. When you do that, as Marsha has > done (as well as Bo, Platt and whoever else has been infected with this > nonsense), the problem is conflated with the solution. The cure becomes > indistinguishable from the disease. Pirsig's criticisms of SOM are then > misinterpreted as criticisms of the MOQ's intellectual level. The result is > a total disaster, one that totally undermines Pirsig's work and undermines > this forum's main purpose. > > > It's not just wrong, it's aggressively and obnoxiously wrong. It's > self-indulgent, attention-seeking, egotistical bullshit. She. Does. Not. > Care about this kind of work, probably because she's incapable of doing it. > Like I said, it's probably a sour grapes kind of thing. > > Wikipedia on "Sour grapes": > "The phrase sour grapes is an expression originating from "The Fox and the > Grapes," one of Aesop's Fables. It refers to pretending not to care for > something one wants, but does not or cannot have." > > > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
