> djh said to dmb: > ...Anyway - I'll also speak to your specific charge that I seem to claim that > it's 'always wrong to skillfully manipulate abstract concepts or define any > words.' Of course I don't think it's always wrong for, as you seem to > agree, the conclusion would be that there's no point in joining an > intellectual discussion board if you think it's always wrong. But what I am > claiming is that while it's not always wrong it is always ultimately > degenerate. Can you see the difference between those two things? > > > > dmb said: > You're still missing the point. Your statements have grown increasingly > bizarre, David, and now you've really gone off the deep end. Intellectual > discussion "is always ultimately degenerate" but "it's not always wrong"? So > sometimes degeneracy is good? This claim is so obviously wrong and foolish > that it doesn't even deserve to be disputed.
djh responds: This claim which is obviously wrong and foolish that doesn't even deserve to be disputed is straight from the words of RMP: "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." Notice here how he emphasises point that writing a metaphysics is degenerate in the MYSTIC sense? Clearly what RMP is talking about here is the Code of Art. According to the Code of Art - all else being equal - intellectualism is degenerate. "In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level of evolution, is more moral." I invite you to dispute that statement because it would be a very curious stance to disagree with. "Static social and intellectual patterns are only an intermediate level of evolution. They are good servants of the process of life but if allowed to turn into masters they destroy it." "So sometimes degeneracy is good? " you ask.. Yes, sometimes degeneracy is good. That's exactly right! You and I are being MYSTICALLY degenerate right now discussing this intellectual thing called the MOQ but of course this degeneracy in the mystic sense is INTELLECTUALLY good. "But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. 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." You are being fanatical by denying that we are degenerate when we define Quality intellectually. > dmb said: > degenerateadjective |diˈjenərit|1 having lost the physical, mental, or moral > qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline : a > degenerate form of a higher civilization. See note at depraved . > > noun |diˈjenərit|an immoral or corrupt person. > > verb |diˈjenəˌrāt| [ intrans. ]decline or deteriorate physically, mentally, > or morally : the quality of life had degenerated | the debate degenerated > into a brawl. > > My computer's thesaurus says the other adjectives for "degenerate" are > "debased, degraded, corrupt, impure, corrupt, decadent, dissolute, > dissipated, debauched, reprobate, profligate; sinful, ungodly, immoral, > unprincipled, amoral, dishonorable, disreputable, unsavory, sordid, low, > ignoble" and opposes it to the terms "pure" and "moral". As a noun, > "degenerate" can be used in place of words like "reprobate, debauchee, > profligate, libertine" and as a verb can be equated with "deteriorate, > decline, slip, slide, worsen, lapse, slump, go downhill, regress, retrogress; > go to rack and ruin; informal go to pot, go to the dogs, hit the skids, go > into/down the toilet, waste (away), atrophy, weaken" and the opposite term is > simply "improve". > > The point in using an ordinary dictionary, in case you're wondering, is to > show that your claim is absurd, to put it politely. You are misusing the term > so badly that your claim can be defeated by simply quoting the dictionary. > But what really kills me is the way you keep missing the point of Pirsig's > prohibition. You are very badly misconstruing Pirsig's point to mean that > intellectual discussion is "always ultimately degenerate". I've been trying > to explain why that is wrong but, apparently, you just cannot grasp this > point. It's very frustrating and my patience has been tested to it's limit. djh responds: Yes, an intellectual discussion is always ultimately mystically degenerate. "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." I can't see how I'm doing anything other than repeating what Pirsig says. But apparently you'd like to pretend that we're not being degenerate by existing.. Apparently you'd like to ignore Lila quotes such as this: "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." C'mon dmb. You're plenty smart enough to see this. Why don't you? Why do you want to deny that you're being degenerate by defining things intellectually? Is it that you're too attached to intellectual values that simply saying 'intellectualism is mystically degenerate' is too much? > dmb said: > Let me try one more time. If you STILL can't see what I'm saying, then I'm > just going to have to conclude that you're just not up to the task. (And that > talking to you is a huge waste of time.) > > As I've already pointed out many times the degeneracy in question is > degenerate BECAUSE intellect is lower on the moral hierarchy than is the > mystic reality. Right there, David. That's the point you're NOT getting. It > is immoral to define DQ (the mystic reality) because definitions are static > and intellectual. The positivists also rejected metaphysics but for > completely different reasons. The MOQ is a form of philosophical mysticism, > with DQ being undefinable mystic reality. The degeneracy in question is based > on the mystics' objection to metaphysics. djh responds: Yes. That's right. The degeneracy in question is mystic degeneracy - I agree with that. > dmb said: > "Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of reality > metaphysics is too 'scientific.' Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is > NAMES about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a > thirty-thousand page menu and no food." (LILA 63) > > (That analogy is from William James, by the way. "One real pea is better > food," James says, "than all the menus in the world.") > > "Some of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics... They > share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside of > language; that language splits things up into parts while the true nature of > reality is undivided." (LILA 63) > > "Mystics will tell you that once you've opened the door to metaphysics you > can say good-bye to any genuine understanding of reality. Thought is not a > path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path because when you try to use > thought to approach something that is prior to thought your thinking does not > carry you toward that something. It carries you AWAY from it. To define > something is to subordinate it to a tangle of intellectual relationships. And > when you do that you destroy real understanding. The central reality of > mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called "Quality" is his first book, > is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't have to be defined. You > understand it without definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a direct > experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions. Quality is > indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower > and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics > must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." > (LILA 64) > > Basically, the distinction here is between reality and words, between actual > food and the menu. The degeneracy in question depends on this distinction > between thought and reality as it's experienced directly. As Pirsig and James > will say a couple of dozen chapters later, "there must always be a > discrepancy between concept and reality, because the former are static and > discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing". (LILA 365) And Pirsig > repeats this same idea again in Lila's Child. > > "The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the > Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic > tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks > about does. ...The static language of the Metaphysics of Quality will never > capture the Dynamic reality of the world but some fingers point better than > others and as the world changes, old pointers and road maps tend to lose > their value." > > All of these quotes and comments are presented to make just one point, the > point you're NOT getting. You see it yet?The menu is not the food, the map is > not the road, and words are not reality. Unless one is an extremely stupid > person, this distinction should be quite clear by now. I mean, what kind of > idiot thinks it's good idea to eat menus? What kind of person thinks that we > can drive our cars across a map? Only a very confused person could make that > mistake, don't you think? And avoiding the degeneracy in question depends on > understanding the proper relationship between thought and reality. In the > MOQ, of course, all static patterns (including the intellectual level of > static patterns) are subordinate to DQ. Degeneracy is a failure to properly > acknowledge this hierarchical relationship. Degeneracy would be predicated on > the belief that thought CAN bring you closer to reality, that the map is just > a real as the road or that reading the menu is a good substitute for an > actual meal…. It is quite alright to discuss Pirsig's thought so long as we > know that "the static language of the MOQ will never capture the Dynamic > reality of the world." djh responds: Right. And thus all static patterns according to the Code of Art - are mystically degenerate.. And no - these static patterns are not the food but - like a menu - they represent the food…. "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality." And this is the point you seem to be missing. Dynamic Quality - the 'food' is constantly defined by everyone. Simply BELIEVING that 'Thought cannot bring you closer to reality' does not suddenly change the fact that when you think you are removed from reality. The removal happens regardless of what you believe. This removal - this discussion - is ultimately mystic degeneracy regardless of the static shine you may want to put on it. > dmb said: > It's one thing to say that "one real pea is better food than all the menus in > the world" but quite another to say that menus are evil. The point is to > elevate reality (DQ) above thought (sq), not to trash thought as such. The > point is to subordinate intellect to DQ in the MOQ's moral hierarchy. But > your failure consists in misusing this distinction to misconstrue any > intellectual discussions of anything as always inherently degenerate. > > If you want to eat real food, drive on actual roads or see the actual moon, > then philosophical discussions will not give you what you want. But who > thinks they can? Not me. I'm not even talking about the mystic reality. I'm > talking about the MOQ, which "is static and should be separated from the DQ > it talks about." > > It's not degenerate to examine the menu, to compare Pirsig's map to other > maps because that is NOT a case of trying to "capture the Dynamic reality of > the world". It is just only a matter of thinking about thoughts, of talking > about words, of conceptualizing concepts! This is just a matter of > intellectually dealing with intellectual static patterns. This does NOT > constitute the subordination of anything higher than intellectual static > patterns. The MOQ itself is static and intellectual. That's what we are here > to talk about, not the mystic reality as such. djh responds: This is a quote of yours verbatim: "I'm not even talking about the mystic reality. I'm talking about the MOQ, which "is static and should be separated from the DQ it talks about." " Clearly this is a contradiction of yours here. You *are* talking about the mystic reality. According to the quote you provided in the next sentence - the MOQ *talks about* DQ. All of this is in line with the quote by RMP in LC - "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality." The genius of the MOQ is that as it's very first STATIC division it separates DQ and sq. And so as Pirsig explains further in the same quote.. "But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it." This division is basically an intellectual admittance that static definitions are degenerate. This division goes - okay - DQ - that cannot be defined - so let's put that fact aside - and now let's indulge in the intellectual quality of static intellectual divisions. But that first division - that first division is intellectual! It's all a description of DQ… The whole MOQ. > dmb said: > It is not immoral to talk about words and ideas or otherwise discuss Pirsig's > writings. If one thinks otherwise, one should get the hell out of here. > Seriously. Such a person should not leave because disagree with Pirsig or > disloyalty to the dogma - or whatever - but simply because of a fundamental > incompetence. Such a person has no business being anywhere near a philosophy > discussion. I suspect such a dummy would make for a very lousy mystic too. > Being a mystic and being anti-intellectual are two completely different > things, about as different as Buddha and Hitler. djh responds: I agree with that - we cannot help but avoid defining things statically - and so it is not immoral to talk about words and ideas. In fact it can be a very good thing. Also - telling the difference between a Mystic and an anti-intellectual - it seems - can be very difficult. Both avoid intellectual quality - however one shows little respect to intellectual quality and bashes it to avoid it - while the other completely understands intellectual quality to the point where they are skilled enough to avoid 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
