> > "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.
djh comments: As I've said repeatedly - strictly speaking *any* definition or any action or any *thing* is immoral as it is destroying the ultimately undefined nature of reality with fixed metaphysical meanings... "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." Just admit you're being immoral by living and defining words dmb then we can actually talk about where Marsha is making her mistake because this point isn't it.. > dmb also said: > Marsha doesn't have a leg to stand on here. It's just self-serving, > anti-intellectual bullshit. It's just self-serving, anti-intellectual > bullshit.There is nothing morally superior about Marsha's stance. djh responds: I disagree with such a blanket statement that there is *nothing* morally superior about Marsha's stance. By your own admission - ".. [It is] immoral to create a metaphysics.. Because it is a case of intellect, "a lower form of evolution, ..trying to devour a higher mystic one". That's what's moral about her stance! You can't say that there's something to her stance in the one sentence, then turn around and say there's "nothing" to it the next.. > dmb continued: > 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. djh responds: As I keep explaining - Marsha values DQ above all. It is her extreme valuing of DQ which is causing her to try and include DQ even in things which aren't DQ (such as intellectual quality) to the point where she says that static patterns are 'ever-changing'. This seems to be what is creating this intellectual ugliness that you're complaining about. But pointing this intellectual ugliness out to her isn't going to do anything because she's not interested in intellectual quality! (so far) > dmb said finally: > 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. djh responds: If we were to continue our previous discussion you would hopefully learn that you are still misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never said that philosophical critiques or complaining about a lack of intellectual quality isn't any good. I think in Marsha's case however, doing this isn't going to get you anywhere(and heaven knows you've tried!) because she doesn't value intellectual clarity like you do dmb. Marsha values DQ - and like it or not the MOQ's Code of Art supports DQ over intellectual quality. Until you clearly and continually acknowledge that to Marsha you aren't going to get anywhere with her.. Maybe one day she'll show some interest in intellectual questions - but I don't see it happening today and certainly not before folks reassure her that she's correct about DQ being above the intellectual level. She's right about this and it's not where she's making her mistake.. 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
