Yes Marsha, You do indeed follow your own logic. Your logic follows what you value.. While I may disagree with large chunks of that logic it is still your own logic and you still do logically use the MOQ and its levels in your thinking.. I didn't highlight that enough in my post to dmb.. Thanks for pointing that out.
-David. On 29/04/2013, at 9:39 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gentlemen, > > Utter nonsense! Dynamic Quality is undivided & unpatterned (Krimel might say > chaos. I prefer undifferentiated.) and offers nothing to live with or live > by, and I DO APPRECIATE LIFE. You just seem to think that to accept > intellectual value is to agree with your interpretations and your beliefs. > > The great ones say see for yourself. > > > Marsha > > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:10 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> David said: >>> ...The 'meaning' of logical consistency or coherence doesn't have to differ >>> between person to person for folks to still disagree about what has high or >>> low logical consistency and high or low coherence. Everyone knows what's >>> good. Everyone knows what's logically consistent or has coherence. We just >>> disagree about our words which describe that good… Coherence and >>> incoherence isn't a matter of personal feelings. Quality is universal. >>> Our different interpretations of Quality vary between person to person >>> however - depending on our life experience. So along this line of thought >>> - Marsha *is* a culture of one just like everyone else... >>> >>> >>> "'You're sort of another culture,' he said. 'A culture of one. A culture is >>> an evolved static pattern of quality capable of Dynamic change. That's what >>> you are. That's the best definition of you that's ever been invented. >>> 'You may think everything you say and everything you think is just you but >>> actually the language you use and the values you have are the result of >>> thousands of years of cultural evolution. It's all in a kind of debris of >>> pieces that seem unrelated but are actually part of a huge fabric. >>> Levi-Strauss postulates that a culture can only be understood by reenacting >>> its thought processes with the debris of its interaction with other >>> cultures. Does this make sense? I'd like to record the debris of your own >>> memory and try to reconstruct things with it… That's what I think can be >>> done with a single person. I can take parts of your language and your >>> values and trace them to old patterns that were laid down centuries ago and >>> are what make you what you are.'" >>> >>> >>> dmb replied: >>> The quote is evidence for MY point, actually. And it's quite fitting that >>> he's talking about Lila, the title character, who interprets the Captain's >>> questions and inquiries as a personal attack. She evades the questions and >>> then simply refuses to answer at all. I'm nobody, she says, you can't get >>> to me. Of course this is because she is intellectually nowhere. She just >>> cannot rightly read the situation. He's trying to help her but she's afraid >>> him and doesn't understand him, assumes he just like all the others who >>> used her and discarded her. She's sick and the diagnosis is made by >>> examining her static patterns and lack thereof. In any case, the quote >>> certainly makes the same point that I did. Where Pirsig says, "the language >>> you use and the values you have are the result of thousands of years of >>> cultural evolution," I had said, "we are composed of the static patterns of >>> our time and culture and language". Like the title, Marsha doesn't get to >>> have her own private version of intellectual values. She sees the value or >>> she doesn't and it's quite obvious that she doesn't… If Marsha doesn't care >>> about truth and thinks philosophizing is inherently immoral, I think it's >>> going to be pretty much impossible to show Marsha that logical consistency, >>> the proper use of terms, coherence, clarity, economy, evidence, elegance, >>> etc.. are better than logical inconsistency, the misuse of terms, >>> incoherence, irrelevance, verbosity, selective reading, and clumsiness. If >>> she doesn't care about such things, the only means of persuasion are ruled >>> out before you can even begin to try. She just can't appreciate what's >>> happening, what's being said or why it is being said... >> >> David responds: >> Right - we have full agreement on this. But the key thing to me is why >> doesn't she see it? You mention it below too but I'm also sick of you two >> constantly bickering about this when it's painfully clear that logically >> explaining to her how she is wrong isn't going to change a thing. She's not >> interested in a logical discussion. We clearly both agree about that. So >> what to do about it? >> >>> dmb talks throughout about possible solutions (djh collected): >>> That's why she doesn't belong here and never says anything worth hearing. >>> It's just interference. It's just noise. She's just a parrot - doesn't even >>> understand the meaning of the words she uses and yet those words are played >>> over and over like a broken record. It's like the Groundhog Day of >>> philosophy; a nightmarish loop where you have to go through the same damn >>> thing every day, month and month, year after year. After a while you have >>> to start to wonder about her mental health. Some learning curves are >>> shallower than others, but jeez... That's exactly why Marsha should not be >>> part of this discussion group. Her anti-intellectualism is NOT our problem. >>> It's her problem, her deficit. If she hates water, then she should hang out >>> at some place OTHER the swim club. Isn't totally obvious that this is just >>> not the right place for people with attitudes and values like hers? Doesn't >>> the MOQ tell us that it is immoral to let social values dominate >>> intellectual values? That's what she's doing, at best…No, she's misusing >>> and misconstruing the basic structure of the MOQ and it might not be crazy, >>> although I certainly have my suspicions about that, but it certainly is >>> incorrect and, frankly, it's downright stupid…. And so, of course, I've >>> spent some time and energy trying to show exactly how and why her >>> assertions are nonsense. Why? Because I quite like Pirsig's work and I feel >>> compelled to protect it from such abuse. Marsha is probably a hopeless case >>> but reasonable people are persuaded by reason. It never happens instantly, >>> not even with well-informed and sincere conversationalists - but honest, >>> reasonable people will eventually change their minds and/or grow >>> intellectually. Total incorrigibility is simply unacceptable in a place >>> like this; we're not just talking about a frustratingly shallow learning, >>> where you get held back to repeat the grade, but a completely flat >>> line...Logic has BECOME an issue because of Marsha's actual and particular >>> assertion of illogic. Same with definitions. They became an issue because >>> of Marsha's actual and particular misuse of the MOQ's key terms and >>> concepts. And of course these are intimately related because the logical >>> inconsistency and her contradictory use of the terms is one and the same >>> thing. To say that static patterns are ever-changing IS an illogical misuse >>> of the terms, which I've explained many times. She has proven to be totally >>> impervious to any kind of persuasion - dictionaries, encyclopedia, >>> philosophers, academic professional and of course an avalanche of textual >>> evidence from Pirsig's writings. She has amply demonstrated that is >>> incapable of finding value in any of it. >> >> David responds: >> But that's just it dmb. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of lack of >> intelligence or her mental health or her immorally valuing social values >> over intellectual ones. I agree with you about the problem but not >> necessarily all of the values which you've attributed the cause. >> >> What the MOQ tells us is that people are their values, or as Dan might like >> to point out to me - values are people. So what we know about what Marsha >> values are the words she uses on this forum.. So while there may indeed be >> a grain of truth to each of the causes you mentioned I think above and >> beyond everything else - Marsha values Dynamic Quality. If you look at her >> writing it mostly talks about one thing and is speaking to the value of one >> thing - DQ. It's Marsha's extreme valuing of Dynamic Quality above >> everything else which is blinding her ability to see the beauty of static >> quality being what it is called - static. She likes DQ so much she wants to >> include it in something which is *not* DQ… How else do we explain her >> continual insistence that static patterns are 'ever-changing', >> 'impermanent', and that they have 'no independent or inherent existence'? >> By trying to include DQ in things which clearly are not DQ - Marsha is >> undermining them and destroying them and her understanding of DQ all at the >> same time.. >> >> But herein lies the problem... Lila contains many, many quotes which >> support DQ over static quality and these undermine the importance of static >> quality. If you make a complaint to her that she isn't respecting static >> quality - not just intellectual values but any of them - then she'll just >> roll out(and has many times) another quote from Lila which shows that DQ is >> the source of all things.. >> >> So this is the problem - You cannot complain to Marsha that she isn't >> valuing any sort of static quality because she'll have quotes to show you >> and herself that this valuing DQ over static quality is supported by the >> MOQ. >> >> So what's the solution? >> >> The solution, I think, is to *show* Marsha that as a result of valuing DQ so >> much - the distinction between the two has disappeared and she's gaining >> neither.. We're not the only one's losing in this arrangement. Marsha is >> too… Until she sees that - then nothing will change. >> >>> dmb said: >>> The whole point of Pirsig work is to integrate intellect and values. That's >>> how rationality is expanded and improved. In the MOQ, there is a formal >>> recognition of Quality within the operations of intellect. The intellectual >>> level of values is protected by the code of art, which protects >>> intellectual evolution, and it is protected from degeneracy by the next >>> highest moral code. This is what Marsha is constantly trashing, insulting >>> and misconstruing. Pirsig has re-constructed things so that intellectual is >>> no longer that lifeless voice of reason, no longer meaningless, or hollow >>> or amoral. This is a matter of confusing the problem (Objectivity) with the >>> solution (MOQ). Marsha has warped the MOQ so as to turn it into its own >>> worst enemy. >> >> David responds: >> I disagree that Marsha thinks the MOQ is the problem because she is actually >> using the MOQ in her reasoning for behaving the way that she does. She >> doesn't think the MOQ is the problem. She values DQ over static quality - >> including intellectual quality. That's supported by the MOQ! >> >> But of course - as we both know - equally supported by the MOQ - is the >> importance of static quality. And folks could also roll out quotes to >> support the importance of static quality in response (and they have).. But >> if that's all we do - argue for one side or the other - then we'll be here >> forever. Pirsig purposely created the MOQ so you could find support for >> *either* DQ or static quality if you needed it. Because the most important >> thing isn't just DQ or sq but a good *balance* between the two. The trouble >> with Marsha, or with anyone else who is out of kilter in their perspective >> on this - is that she's all DQ this and 'ever-changing' that - she simply >> cannot see the value in a static - static quality. It's so very distant >> from her outlook that even the idea of a clear distinction between the two >> isn't something she could easily understand.. So again - I think showing >> her the pitfalls of this blurring and chaos is the key… >> >>> dmb also said: >>> It exactly the same error, phrased exactly the same way, regardless of >>> anything that happens between each posting. >>> >>> Funny how her performance of this never-changing static pattern is directly >>> contradicted by claim made within it. It's contradictory nonsense on so >>> many levels, and that's just one of the problems with the often repeated >>> salad of words. >> >> David responds: >> That's right. Because of her blurring of the distinction between DQ and sq >> - she gains neither… If she can ever see that - or someone can ever somehow >> show her that - then things will most definately get better. >> 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 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
