"Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get."
David Harding said to dmb: The creation of a metaphysics *is* an immoral act. Don't you agree? It's written right there by Pirsig in the quote Marsha provided. dmb says: Yes, I agree with Pirsig. The problem is not the quote but with the uncomprehending way that Marsha uses the quote. And in this case, as usual, she spinelessly used it to evade the criticism. And this criticism has everything to do with the way she confuses and distorts the distinction between concepts and reality, between static patterns and the mystic reality. That's what the quote is all about. Properly understanding that distinction is necessary to properly understand this quote. WHY is it immoral to create a metaphysics? Because it is a case of intellect, "a lower form of evolution, ..trying to devour a higher mystic one". This is another way of saying that Quality cannot be defined, that we ought not try to squeeze reality into words and ideas. But Marsha misconstrues this to mean that it's immoral to define words and ideas, to mean that any kind of philosophical discussion is some sort of moral violation. Come on, David. That's just asinine. Marsha doesn't have a leg to stand on here. It's just self-serving, anti-intellectual bullshit. There is nothing morally superior about Marsha's stance. Quite the opposite. She's playing a childish game and has no interest in knowing what's what. Anti-intellectualism is just a way to justify or even glorify her own philosophical ignorance. Do you know what Marsha values above all? Do you imagine getting an honest answer or straight answer from her about anything? I have never seen that and I'd be quite surprised if it ever happened. P.S. If your method of "acknowledging values" (as opposed to focusing on philosophical critiques or complaining about the lack of intellectual quality) were effective at all, then we should be able to see where you have made progress and I have not. I don't see that, David. Not at all. Unless you can show some results, all the criticisms will still stand and I'll remain convinced that this is a worthless idea. Why not apply it to me? I'm far more likely to be cooperative, at least. 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
