dmb said to David Harding:
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.
David Harding replied:
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. 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..
Ron commented on this dispute:
... 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.
... 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
argument by hoping they will simply address the quote out of context instead of
actually looking at what they are saying in a critical manner and evaluate the
consequences of the position they are taking. It is a device employed by
someone who obviously thinks their opponent 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 argument.
dmb says:
Yea, that's pretty much what I mean by calling it "self-serving,
anti-intellectual bullshit".
But what really kills me is the oblivious evasion of every argument. David H
did not even address the objection but simply repeated the same mistake more
emphatically. I said it was asinine and explained why it makes to sense and yet
it was as if I said nothing at all.
And it's such a stupid, simple mistake. Defining conventional and philosophical
concepts is not the same as trying to define the ineffable, mystical reality.
This misconstrues thought itself as a sin. Man, that is just really shooting
yourself in the foot. If one's aim is intellectual paralysis, this is the way
to go.
Plus, if one really believed that discussing philosophy were a sin then one's
participation here would make you either a hypocrite, a liar or an idiot.
Sigh.
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
