I specificly said disagreement...no clarification huh...you don't even know What you mean do you..
MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >x-man, > >I did not seek your agreement. > > >Marsha > > > >On May 28, 2013, at 7:17 PM, X <[email protected]> wrote: > >> War woman, >> I have read it slowly and carefully and I understand what Pirsig is saying >> but I'm not quite getting what you are trying to say by highlighting the term >> "truth" as a singularity. >> I have no idea what you mean since your explanation seems contradictory >> unclear and obscure. Therefore I cant say anything about the point you are >> trying to make or whether or not it conflicts with Pirsig, James, Dmb or my >> own point of view. >> It seems to conflict with your two truths assertion, it also seems to >> conflict >> with your assertion that all intellectual patterns are truth patterns. >> >> So .....alittle clarification as to where this is all going would be nice >> if you want me disagree about anything. >> >> x-man >> >> . >> >> MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On May 28, 2013, at 1:02 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Warwoman sez to Dmb: >>>> The automobile, the airplane and the bicycle do not translate into a >>>> legitimate replacement for 'a static intellectual pattern'. The >>>> automobile, the airplane and the bicycle represent a straw man argument: >>>> >>>> Ron sez: >>>> Does this make the automobile one exclusive singular automobile? >>> >>> >>> >>> x-man, >>> >>> RMP's statement also uses 'a static intellectual pattern'. That's 'a', not >>> 'the'. That's 'a static intellectual pattern'. As '_a_ static >>> intellectual pattern' it may include all intellectual references to the >>> philosophical pursuit of truth including all philosophical theories of >>> truth. As I wrote to dmb: I posted two RMP quotes (statements made by >>> Mr. Pirsig) where he uses the singular form of the verb 'to be' pertaining >>> to 'truth'. Read the post. I made no additional points, but merely posted >>> RMP's words. Read RMP's words. I doubt that he had a lapse in using the >>> rules of grammar. Read the words slowing. There is no reason to accuse me >>> of anything. Please note he also does not use 'static intellectual >>> patterns', but used 'a static intellectual pattern'; that is also the >>> singular usage. His words. RMP's words, not mine. If it conflicts with >>> your Pirsig/James interpretation, it's not my problem. - Read the quotes. >>> >>> If these quotes conflict with dmb's interpretation of his Pirsig/James >>> interpretation, that is not my problem. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 27, 2013, at 3:42 AM, MarshaV wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> To bring this back to the subject: >>>> >>>> "Truth is a [singular] static intellectual pattern [singular] within >>>> a larger entity called Quality. James had tried to make his pragmatism >>>> popular by getting it elected on the coattails of practicality. He was >>>> always eager to use such expressions as 'cash-value,' and 'results,' and >>>> 'profits,' in order to make pragmatism intelligible to 'the man in the >>>> street,' but this got James into hot water. Pragmatism was attacked by >>>> critics as an attempt to prostitute truth to the values of the >>>> marketplace. James was furious with this misunderstanding and he fought >>>> hard to correct the misinterpretation, but he never really overcame the >>>> attack. >>>> >>>> "What Phaedrus saw was that the Metaphysics of Quality avoided this attack >>>> by making it clear that the good to which truth is [singular] >>>> subordinate is intellectual and Dynamic Quality ..." >>>> >>>> (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 28) >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> "The MOQ does not turn its back on the empiricist belief that the more we >>>> analyse, the closer we approach to truth. Truth is [singular] the >>>> highest quality static intellectual pattern [singular] and analysis has >>>> shown over and over again historically that it improves the quality of >>>> intellectual patterns." >>>> >>>> (RMP, 'Copleston Annotations') >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> is [verb] >>>> >>>> 1. 3rd person singular present indicative of be. >>>> >>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/is?s=t >>> >>> >>> >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 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
