Subject: Re: [MD] theories of truth
"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.
[Ron adds]
The typical response to the use of this particular snippet is simply to read
the remainder of the paragraph in its context
and that is that no one exists who does not corrupt mystic reality. To live, to
think, to "be" is to pollute mystical experience
with metaphysical meaning. Which is also written right there in the full text
in its context.
One then has to ask Marsha and Dave H. if they side with the christians in this
matter in which we are all born with
the original sin of knowing good. At least that is what they seem to be saying
when they use that quote out of context as
support to the explanation of the immorality of intellectual quality. They use
it in such a way as to seek to undercut quality because
quality that is unintelligible is quality that does not exist.
Notice how the rheorical stratagy has now shifted to include "change" as a
static concept to bolster the arguement?
So..
In an attempt to be more moral than intellectual quality they assert the
superiority of the value-less.
The consequence is it renders the good as an illusion, Quality is hypothetical
and lacks any inherent reality.
This appears to run contrary to Pirsigs explanations in most every way.
So I suspect it is more of a rhetorical move {a very poor one} aimed at besting
someone in an arguement
by hoping they will simply address the quote out of context instead of actually
looking at what they are
saying in a criticle manner and evaluate the consequences of the position they
are taking.
It is a device employed by someone who obviously thinks their opponant is not
very bright and not very
well read on the subject matter because it is an obviously dishonest and
desperate tactic to employ just to
win an arguement.
..
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
