dmb said:
...As you've just construed it, any philosophical discussion is degenerate and
it's always wrong to have any kind of intellectual conversation. This is the
mistake I'm trying to correct...
djh replied:
Sorry dmb, it seems you're misunderstanding me. I don't think that it is
always wrong to have any kind of intellectual conversation'. [...] I do think
it's important to recognise that before you commence a philosophical discussion
that you recognise that it is degenerate in its own way as Pirsig does at the
start of Lila.. [...] ...it is important to remember that sq is unavoidable
and yet destroys DQ no matter what you want to try.
dmb says:
Dude, please look at your flip-flopping self. You can't deny the view and then
assert it a few moments later. It's NOT always wrong AND it's important to
recognize the degeneracy of philosophical discussion before you even start?!
You're talking out of both sides, David.
And what about the most important distinction I made? You didn't even mention
it! Again - please hear this idea: It is degenerate to define the ineffable
mystic reality (DQ) because that a case of trying to squeeze reality itself
into static intellectual patterns. But this problem, this violation, does NOT
apply to philosophical terms. They are just static intellectual patterns, not
the mystic reality. They ARE supposed to be definable and, except for "DQ" of
course, it is NOT degenerate to define Pirsig's philosophic terms.
Metaphysics isn't easy to define but it has gone out of style because it is
supposed to deal with "the fundamental nature of being and the world. Pirsig's
"metaphysics" avoids any definition of exactly that: the fundamental nature of
the world is, for a mystic, outside of language, outside of concepts and is
known directly, prior to words and concepts.
But I am just talking about concepts. I'm just talking about the meaning of the
words in Pirsig's books. Don't you see the difference? Marsha doesn't.
And just think about it for a minute. How does it make sense to say that it's
degenerate to define words and concepts? That's just asinine. It's ridiculous,
especially in this context. The truth is, I think, that a place like this COULD
be where real living philosophy happens. Imagine a group of people seriously
engaged in thinking together. I've seen this happen in book discussion groups
but only when people are fairly serious about the material.
Anti-intellectualism is certainly poisonous to any such hopes for this place.
djh continued:
...So really none of what you wrote here addresses my overall point.. Could I
be right about the other stuff I wrote in light of this? Feel free to go back
and look over the previous post if you like.. Or not :-)
dmb says:
You know, everything would be smooth and groovy if only you'd just consider my
values. Don't you realize that I have values as a unique person, therefore my
views should not be held to any kind of intellectual standards. I feel strongly
about this, see, because I was raised in the suburbs (a very exotic culture
that you couldn't possibly understand).
But seriously, David. I thought your "overall point" was dead and buried long
ago. Sorry, I just think you're making no sense and quite vaguely too. Maybe
you'd like to demonstrate this method of "considering values". Show us how one
looks at Marsha's values apart from the considerations of intellectual
coherence. Use Marsha's favorite salad of words for an example, please. You
know, the one she repeats so often and in which she describes static patterns
as "ever-changing". For the sake of argument, I'll pretend that the
intellectual values (or lack thereof) don't merit consideration while you do
what you're telling me to do. Show me what it is. I honestly can't imagine how
that would actually work.
Go for it. I'll watch very carefully, I swear on a stack of dictionaries.
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
