> djh said to dmb: > ... All I'm saying is that when discussing something intellectual with > someone who doesn't value similar things to you *or* isn't interested in > logic- a logical discussion with them is pointless. It's tiring watching you > two go at one another when you're both talking from different values.. Until > you discuss those values - then things will go nowhere.. > ... To translate a misunderstanding into a 'strawman' is sinister as it > presumes ill intentions of the person who misunderstood. That's all well > and good to casually throw around such wild emotive allegations - if your > goal is the truth - but what if your goal is what's good? Is it good to > accuse someone of bad intentions when bad intentions are very rarely the > cause of disagreements in intellectual discussions? This just speaks to my > larger point about values and dialectical discussions. Speak to folks > values - then you'll change their mind and things will get better - but not > before.. > > > dmb replied: > That sounds like an attempt to be fair and diplomatic - until you stop to > think about what this actually means. Aren't you basically asking me to put > aside my concerns with logical inconsistencies and straw man arguments and > focus on their personal values instead? As I see it, this is degenerate.We > don't want social level values to rule in a philosophy forum, right? We don't > want to turn every discussion into an ad hominem attack or squelch criticism > and debate because it makes people feel "accused". This forum was not built > to be a group therapy vehicle or a social club, but to discuss the > metaphysics of Robert Pirsig. It's not okay to be contradictory, > intellectually dishonest, evasive, or anything like that. According to the > MOQ, I think, violating these standards is the intellectual equivalent of sin > and wrong-doing. It's sleazy the way infidelity is sleazy on the social > level. It's a despicable betrayal of the values about which one has made > promises, either explicitly > or implicitly. It's totally worthy of criticism and I find it disturbing that > we can't get agreement on this stuff. These are just the A-B-Cs of > intellectual values. >
djh responds: I think there's a huge distinction between talking *to* someone socially and talking/thinking *about* what someone values that you're missing in your characterisation of my argument here. One of those things is indeed degenerate on a philosophical discussion board - the other is the opposite of degenerate and a very good thing. You're not going to understand someone by using the dialectical method and accusing them of using 'straw man agreements', being 'intellectually dishonest' or 'evasive'. This to me was what ZMM was all about. The dialectical method with its disregard for value is really bad at looking at the quality of things. It just seeks to take over those things and in the process - destroy any values which the two interlocutors may or may not have. It's so rare that someone has bad intentions but attributing bad intentions is not something dialectic ever worries about and this isn't any good.. Everyone wants what's good. Everyone wants good things to happen. Good is the source of all things - right? Reading Lila explains how even folks who we would consider as evil - such as the Nazi's - thought what they were doing was good.. "The idea that satisfaction alone is the test of anything is very dangerous, according to the Metaphysics of Quality. There are different kinds of satisfaction and some of them are moral nightmares. The Holocaust produced a satisfaction among Nazis. That was quality for them. They considered it to be practical. But it was a quality dictated by low-level static social and biological patterns whose overall purpose was to retard the evolution of truth and Dynamic Quality. James would probably have been horrified to find that Nazis could use his pragmatism just as freely as anyone else, but Phaedrus didn't see anything that would prevent it. But he thought that the Metaphysics of Quality's classification of static patterns of good prevents this kind of debasement." This is the strength of the MOQ. It provides us with a whole new language with which we can begin to understand folks values and think about and discuss which values are good - and those which aren't.. > djh said to dmb: > You start off by saying that Marsha can't have personal values which alter > her sense of intellectual quality because she's intellectually "nowhere". > Then you go on to explain how her different values affect her sense of > intellectual quality. > > dmb responded: > > Well, I said the title character, Lila, is "intellectually nowhere". That's > what Pirsig says about her. That's how Pirsig paints her. And the point is to > dispute your contention that people like Marsha aren't being illogical but > rather they just have a different sense of intellectual quality. I'm saying > that this is NOT how it works. As the title character illustrates, some > people have NO sense of intellectual quality. It's not a matter of > difference, but absence. Not an alternative vision, but mere blindness. > Actual differences are not just acceptable, they're exciting, and totally > worthy of consideration. No problem, but that's not even close to what is > going with Marsha. I think her anti-intellectualism is a transparent attempt > to turn her own inadequacy into a virtue. She foolishly uses Pirsig's attack > on SOM against anything that involves intellect, including the MOQ's > intellectual values in particular and Pirsig's metaphysics in general. It's > quite the train wreck. djh responds: This 'Marsha attempt to turn inadequacy into a virtue' diagnosis is a new one and it made me smile. But it's yet more attributing sinister motives to Marsha which I highly doubt she has. What is really driving Marsha is what she values. Sure, it might be a bonus if you're not very good at logic and you cling to DQ which doesn't 'include' logic, but why does she not value logic so much? Is she really drawn by social level values? I don't see much social values from her to be honest… All I see is her talking -a-lot- about Dynamic Quality.. And logically speaking Dynamic Quality is before intellectual quality. So logically speaking - from Marsha's perspective - she isn't doing anything wrong. Of course there is another value called balance which I think she has lost and you elaborate on this quite eloquently below.. > djh said to dmb: > Marsha clearly values intellectual quality enough to come on a philosophical > discussion board. That's more than some. She's also taken a course in logic > too. That's even more than some.. So I don't think she's 'intellectually > nowhere'. She just doesn't value the intellectual level *very* much.. > Especially one of those things which governs the intellectual level - called > logic. Why is that? Because her own personal values *have* altered her own > ideas about truth and logic.. In fact, specifically, I think it's her > extreme value of DQ which has her trying to incorporate it within static > things which are *not* DQ such as logic and the intellectual level. Why else > would she continually insist that static patterns *change*? > > > > dmb said: > Well, that's the problem. How is it NOT the height of hypocrisy to read the > philosophy books, join the philosophy group and then proceed to dismiss and > denigrate everything about philosophical books and discussions? > > I think it's quite obvious to everyone that Marsha doesn't value intellect > and loves DQ. Why is that? Does it really matter why? If we knew exactly why > Marsha "interprets" the MOQ in such an anti-intellectual way, would that > knowledge somehow make logical contradictions into something legitimate? I > don't see how that could be true. To describe intellectual patterns as > ever-changing is NOT a legitimate alternative. The logical incoherence of her > statements should be a huge red flag telling you that something went wrong. > We know it's a bogus point of view because Pirsig tells us repeatedly that > static and Dynamic Quality are both necessary. To cling to DQ all by itself > is to cling to chaos, Pirsig says. Marsha's hatred of the intellect is not > just logically inconsistent, it's immoral. > djh responds: You seem to be saying - Marsha clearly doesn't value the intellectual level like I do - she must be wrong - so why should I bother even looking at what she values or why she values it? It's almost hard to understate the huge chunks of Lila which would never have been written if Pirsig had the same attitude.. What I'm saying is - what Marsha values - that's the whole thing! And so on this point I think you're right that her love of DQ is creating chaos and intellectual meaninglessness and destroying the very thing she is trying to preserve. The insight found from looking at what Marsha values produces a kind of coherence of its own that wouldn't exist if we didn't look at why she is so anti-logic. The more you can understand *why* Marsha values the things that she does - the better. Such insight helps not only your own understanding of things but helps you to deal with the people around you. This, to me, is a huge part of the beauty of the intellectual level.. > dmb also said: > What I find so disturbing about your contention, David, is the way it asks us > to put intellectual values aside, as if they were optional, as if one can > just take it or leave it. This is an outrageous betrayal of Pirsig's project, > which is to expand and improve the intellect, to formally incorporate DQ into > the operations of intellect. Marsha's anti-intellectual nonsense does nothing > but undermine this forum and the work we're here to discuss. I think this is > fully worthy of contempt, deserves to be criticized and it pains me to see > anyone make excuses for this behavior. You'll never convince me that Marsha's > attitude is some kind of virtue or that she is representing some legitimate > alternative. It's just a clever, ego-boosting way to hide her intellectual > inadequacies. It allows her to portray herself as deeper and more profound > than mere intellectuals. You know, she doesn't give a bunny's butt about > William James or truth or logic - because she "meditates" and has cats. > > It's ridiculous. djh responds: Please don't confuse my request for intellectual analysis as a defence of Marsha's actions. But I do think that Marsha follows virtue like everyone else. Believe it or not; like almost everyone else - Marsha thinks her actions and words are good. In fact, I think she is using the logic of the MOQ in her thinking. She is seeing the parts of Lila which emphasise the value of DQ over sq and holding on to those parts and saying that these justify a complete change to the way intellectual level works. If you can understand why she thinks that - then you're in a much better position - than when you began. Interestingly - as an aside - I noticed you value something similar (though you've clearly translated it to mean something completely different) where you write : " Pirsig's project..is to expand and improve the intellect, to formally incorporate DQ into the operations of intellect.." . I'm sure Marsha would agree with you on that goal! How do you see the MOQ 'formally incorporating DQ into the operations of intellect'? 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
