dmb said to David Harding:
Are we having a conversation or are you just going to repeat the same nonsense
over and over again? Address the damn argument or shut up.. the definition of a
philosophical concept or term is not degenerate because philosophical concepts
and terms are not the mystic reality. The concepts, the terms and the
definition are all static intellectual pattens. In fact, this whole forum can
only ever be static and intellectual. Anyone who thinks we are dealing here
with the mystic reality itself is deeply, deeply confused.. Deal with it or
leave me alone. ....
Harding responds:
I'm trying to answer this as directly as possible dmb but you seem to keep
missing my point. ...Pirsig clearly explains that a metaphysics - which is
nothing but a bunch of definitions of philosophical concepts - is immoral and
degenerate *because* it is an attempt of intellect trying to devour a higher
mystic form of evolution (DQ). ...DQ isn't some mystical thing far away - it's
right here and we're both defining it and destroying it right now with our
intellectual discussion. Does that mean we should stop our intellectual
discussion? Or pretend - like Marsha - that static patterns are
'ever-changing'? Of course not. We cannot help but destroy the ultimately
undefined nature of reality but because Good is a noun it's best if we be as
good as we can. Don't you agree with that?
dmb says:
Oh. My. God.
This is about the fifth time, David. Once again you have ignored the argument
and simply repeated the same notion again. Why are you not addressing the
argument? Look, David, Pirsig's sense of "degeneracy" only makes sense within
an evolutionary hierarchy of values. My argument hinges on that hierarchy, on
the moral codes of the MOQ and THAT is what you are repeatedly failing to
answer, address or even acknowledge. Look at what Pirsig is saying about
science in relation to DQ and in relation to the static levels below intellect.
This is what degeneracy means in the MOQ....
in LILA Pirsig wrote:
"The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection of
biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is also morally
correct because the intellectual patterns of science are of a higher
evolutionary order than the old biological and social patterns. But the
Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality - the value-force that
chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant
experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one-is another matter altogether.
Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is
as immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic Quality as it
is for church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an
integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress
itself."
In each case, degeneracy or immorality consists in allowing the lower level to
trump or subordinate a higher level. If you don't use this hierarchy properly
then all sorts of weird nonsense will result. The prohibitions against marital
infidelity would be misconstrued to mean that any sexual activity is a betrayal
even if you're not married. The prohibition against "selling out" would be
misconstrued to mean that it's immoral to have a job or earn money in any way.
And that's what you're doing to the intellect. The prohibition against trying
to define the mystic reality is misconstrued to mean that it's always wrong to
skillfully manipulate abstract concepts or define any words.
As far as I can tell, NOBODY here is trying to define the mystic reality.
Pirsig flirts with this and he knows it's absurd to even have a metaphysics of
Quality but he only defines it as undefinable, only describes it in terms of
what it is not.
And, even IF you were right it still would be a very useless argument because
the only one who doesn't commit this terrible sin of trying to think clearly is
a person who hasn't been born yet. So what is the point of pressing this idea
against one person and not the other? If everyone is unavoidably guilty of
this, then the criticism applies to everyone on the planet and so it is quite
pointless and useless. It distinguishes nothing from anything. If you're right,
then the point is relevant to absolutely nothing and it will not settle any
dispute. A thing that can't be distinguished from anything else has no value
and does not exist.
Yes, there is such a thing as degenerate sex but not all sex is degenerate.
Without it, the species would go extinct. Yes, there is such a thing as
degenerate money-making and power-grabbing but not all social values are
degenerate. Without them, we'd still be living in caves and grunting at each.
Yes, there is such a thing as degenerate intellect but without intellectual
values we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights, Democracy, science, philosophy. And
all these static values are supposed to serve the ongoing process of life,
supposed to serve the on-going course of evolution.
Anti-intellectualism is degenerate because it thwarts the most highly evolved,
most moral level of static patterns, How in the world does any figure that
hating on the intellect will serve life?
Socrates was right about one thing, at least. For a human being, the unexamined
life is not worth living. The unexamined life is the life of a pig or a dog or
a whore. It's evil. Why don't you get that? How can you make these
anti-intellectual comments without feeling the need to take a shower? Don't you
feel the sleaze of it?
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
