> djh said to dmb: > ...I love how you think that values are 'vague'. They're the whole thing > dmb! Not this dialectical truth which you seem to be holding so tight onto. > ...I further love how you think that I'm 'anti-intellectual' when I've been > in an intellectual discussion with you for over a week now. ...it seems you > just continue to want to have a dialectical argument with me. It seems it > doesn't really matter what you accuse me of so long as you can prove some > aspect of what I say is 'incorrect' (according to the logic resulting from > what you already know) then that's all that matters. This is how dialectic > works - You have your own understanding of how logical things are and if - > what someone else says is contrary to that logic - then attacking them on > this lack of logic is what's important. Values, what's good - be damned - > let's find the dialectical truth! Dialectic --- the usurper of all that is > good…. > > dmb said: > Yes, we are having a conversation, which is otherwise known as a dialogue. > And yes, I'm complaining about your contradictory claims. You say that you do > value intellectual, for example and yet at the same time you also reject the > most basic intellectual standards. In this paragraph, for example, you've > equated our conversation to Plato's dialectical method. You also condemn the > demands of logic and consistency and opposed them to "values". This > illustrates my point quite neatly; like Marsha, you are confusing the disease > with cure. You're misusing Pirsig's complaint about Platonism and SOM against > the MOQ's intellectual values. You are treating the MOQ's intellectual values > as if they were the disease and not the cure. Logical consistency is not the > ONLY thing that matters, of course, but it is one indispensable test of > truth. Further, this "truth" is pragmatic rather than fixed and eternal. And > even more importantly, this kind of truth is NOT separate from values but is > rather the most highly evolved KIND of static quality. See, by mis-diagnosing > the disease and failing to distinguish it from the cure, you just end up > treating anything intellectual as the problem. Rejecting Plato's dialectical > method does NOT mean rejecting debates and discussions in general. Rejecting > Platonism does NOT mean we should also reject arguments or disagreements. > Rejecting SOM does not mean we should also reject definitions, logic, > empirical evidence. This is just a ham-handed case of throwing the baby out > with the bathwater. You say that you're not being anti-intellectual but then > you also condemn intellectual in all sorts of ways, even going so far as to > say that anyone who shows up here to discuss Pirsig's metaphysics should know > that they are going to be doing something inherently degenerate. As I see it, > these positions are totally at odds with your denials of > anti-intellectualism. In other words, these positions are the particulars > that form the basis of my "accusation". These positions ARE anti-intellectual > and they are a result of confusing and conflating the problem with the > solution. I'm not saying that you have hate in your heart, or whatever. I'm > just talking about the words you put into our debate. I'd guess that you > don't understand these complaints for the same reasons that you make this > anti-intellectual mistake. You don't see how your positions amount to > anti-intellectualism, apparently, and anti-intellecutalism is not your > intention. But that's where the confusion and inconsistency has led you. > Pirsig says in chapter 8 of Lila:"The tests of truth are logical consistency, > agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. The MOQ satisfies > these." The MOQ rejects Platonism and it rejects SOM and yet, AS YOU CAN SEE, > the MOQ still considers logical consistency to be a test of truth, a test > that the MOQ passes without becoming its own enemy.Think about it. Why would > any philosopher be okay with logical inconsistencies? When is it ever cool to > be contradictory or confuse one concept with another? The trick is to be > clear about what Pirsig is actually rejecting and what he's NOT rejecting. > Thus the metaphors; disease vs cure, problem vs solution, bathwater vs baby, > etc. Anti-intellectualism results from a failure to comprehend the > difference. Your complaints (logic=SOM, debate=Platonism) demonstrate that > failure. As Franz the SNL weightlifter used to say, "hear me now and believe > me later".
djh responds: That's all fine dmb. But for some reason you're either not reading what I write or you're filtering out the bits which are in contradiction to your characterisation of what I'm saying.. My money's on the second.. "Seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing" .. "It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity. Wherever the chart disagreed with his observations he rejected the observation and followed the chart." Understanding someone! How do we do this? Do we *first* look at the logic of what they say? Or do we look at what they value - what they say is good - then the logic of what they say? Either way - you'll think you 'understand' the person. It's easy to say we 'understand' someone. In the first case - we just have to look at the logic of what they say - regardless of what they value - show how what they say fits into our own 'logic' by drawing comparisons to what we already know and voila - understanding. But is this actual understanding? Where do values fit into this understanding? I thought we are what we value? Or - more accurately - our values are us… Good is a noun right dmb? And so truth isn't separate from what we value. What is true is a high quality intellectual pattern. High quality intellectual patterns are created not by logic but (like all things) by Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality first - then the 'high or low' evaluation of an intellectual pattern - *then* the 'logic' of that pattern… "I don’t think you need to explain low and high quality in dialectical terms. When a baby cries, it tells you it is experiencing low quality. Everyone knows what that means. It can be speculated that high and low is the first of all static divisions of Dynamic Quality and without this differentiation no further differentiation would take place." - Lila's Child. Clearly what Pirsig is talking about is direct experience. We don't need to look at the logic of what someone says to see whether what they say is any good. It's the quality of what they say first - then their logic! In other words what folks value is the most important thing - not the logic of what they say! And before you once again mischaracterise what I'm saying by filtering it through your 'logical' filter… Let me remind you of what I've said previously.. "Also, I can see that here you're again incorrectly characterising my argument as 'intellectual values don't matter'. Intellectual values do indeed matter - that's my point. It's that intellectual values are not driven by the logic we use - but by what we (culturally - personally) value. If you want to understand someone's argument the place to start is with what they value - THEN LOOK AT THE LOGIC THEY USE - not the other way around." and.. "What's better is if you *first* look at what's good - what someone values. You put yourself in their shoes - try and see what they see. THEN attack them on any perceived lack of quality or logic - but NOT before. This is the whole point to my original post. Some folks on here don't seem to look at what folks value first and THEN THEIR LOGIC. " Again - it's funny that you think I'm saying debate = Platonism when I've been in an intellectual discussion with you for over a week. And as the quotes above show - I have been clearly explaining that logic is a good intellectual tool to further investigate and understand the coherence (or lack thereof) of an idea. So - all that said - like Dan; why don't you understand what I'm saying when I keep repeating myself? As with Dan - I think the reason why you misunderstand me (and in fact why all misunderstandings happen) is because you value something different - in this instance I think that what you value is a truth seeking dialectical argument over an intellectual discussion about what's good and valuable. dmb wrote previously: "Frankly, I think it's just kind daft to pretend that these [intellectual values] are not the most relevant values, if not the ONLY relevant values. To the extent that any other kind of static values trump intellectual quality, according to the MOQ, it is immoral and degenerate. " and.. "Yea, Marsha uses her love of DQ to shit on intellectual values. Obviously. And stating the obvious helps how, exactly? Seriously, David, you cannot possibly believe that this is news to anyone. I think this shows that your suggestion is quite worthless. Would you like to show me something that isn't already in plain sight? Or would you prefer to continue with the vague and useless platitudes?" and.. "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. " You're interested not in the quality of what I'm saying but only in the logic of what I'm saying and this is where you're missing my point. Your view seems so very narrow when you say you're only interested in looking at someone's static intellectual values and the logic they use and *not* intellectually discussing *all* of their values. You even go so far as to say that these values are 'vague and useless'. The problem with this view though - is that it completely ignores the biological, social, cultural and Dynamic values which folks have. As I've explained - these values actually *shape* our view of what makes sense intellectually. This is confirmed time and again by Pirsig .. Here's another example.. "Even the facts that people observe to confirm the 'truth' are dependent on the culture they live in." - Lila As I've said before - looking only at intellectual values completely ignores the strength of the MOQ in its ability to look at all values and, among other things, rank them based on how evolved they are. Just think of the huge chunks of Lila which would never have been written if we only looked at someone's intellectual values.. Heck, the book is a discussion of the conflict *between* different values. For the *first* time ever the MOQ provides us with a language with which we can discuss *intellectually* *all* values - intellectual or otherwise. Calling anyone 'anti-intellectual' completely misses the point IMHO. The more important *intellectual* question is *why* they're being anti-intellectual. The MOQ provides us with a beautiful language with which we can intellectually look at just that. But before you can really do that - the place to start is by putting yourself in their shoes and actually understanding what they value.. "Trying to understand a member of another culture is impossible without taking into account differences in value. If a Frenchman asks, 'How can Germans stand to live the way they do?' he will get no answer as long as he applies French values to the question. If a German asks, 'How can the French stand to live the way they do?' he will get no answer as long as he applies German values to the question. When we ask how could the Victorians stand to live in the hypocritical and superficial way they did, we cannot get a useful answer as long as we superimpose on them twentieth-century values that they did not 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
