dmb, I am not in the least bit impressed with your straw man arguments and insults. The phrase "ever-changing static patterns" is not a part of my definition/explanation of static patterns of value. Since you've used double quotes which indicate direct speech, please supply the source. My definition is: ---Static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple events), conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. --- it is not a contradiction to understand that patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. I have asked you to consider the Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being replaced. Things can change - flow - and yet have stabilty; think of a river. Dismissing my examples - Ship of Theseus, a parade (Hume) and a river - as riddles is just another straw man argument. They are not "riddles", they are paradoxes, as in 'a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.' In fact the Ship of Theseus example is also called the 'Theseus's Paradox'. The tactic of calling me anti-intellectual every time I post a RMP quote that doesn't have your approval and that you cannot deal with, is just another straw dog. Those quotes are "textual evidence" no less than the quotes that you post. And I believe that those quotes represent a serious reminder not to get too hung up on the words, concepts, analogy, intellectual static patterns: the pointing finger, and instead RMP is pointing towards the moon, a mystic understanding. And didn’t you write your Master’s paper on the MoQ being an empirically based form of philosophical mysticism? You've got no grounds for complaint. No, dmb, I doubt many are impressed by your unphilosophical rhetoric.
Marsha On Apr 27, 2013, at 12:44 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 a 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. ___ 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
