> djh said: > > > "So sometimes degeneracy is good? " you ask. Yes, sometimes degeneracy is > good. That's exactly right! > > > dmb replied: > > Your claim is contradictory nonsense. According to Pirsig and the English > language, degeneracy is not good. Your claim is just plain stupid because > there is no such thing as good degeneracy. That's WHY your claim is absurd.
djh responds: "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." Metaphysics is good right dmb? Yet here's a quote which RMP claims that it's degenerate. Just because biological things are in the strictest puritan sense - socially degenerate - does that mean we should never have sex or defictate? Degeneracy in one code is the quality of another. Anything static is mystically degenerate - but that mystic degeneracy is statically good. > dmb continued: > And this quote explains why the first part of the claim is wrong > (intellectual discussion is always degenerate). > > "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." > > The degeneracy in question depends on understanding the proper relationship > between thought and reality. You're not getting this very simple point. Your > whole case is predicated on a refusal to acknowledge the distinction between > reality and Pirsig's books. Let me say that again: YOUR CASE DEPENDS ON A > REFUSAL TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND PIRSIG"S WRITTEN WORKS. > Which, of course raises some very important questions. Are you kidding? Are > you blind? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? But seriously. Based on the quote > above, some points should be quite clear. You are pretending that it does not > matter WHAT you are defining. But the question of degeneracy totally hinges > on WHAT you are defining. And the WHATS in question here are "concepts" and > "reality". > > 1. The MOQ is static and intellectual but reality is dynamic and undefinable. Agree. > 2. The MOQ should be separated from the mystic reality that it talks about. Agree. > 3. The MOQ's static language will never capture the mystic reality. Agree. > 4. DQ cannot be defined and any definition of DQ is degenerate. Agree. > 5. This is the distinction that determines whether or not definitions are > degenerate. Disagree. In the strictest mystic sense - all things are degenerate. This is the subtle point that you seem to be missing. A 'distinction' by its very nature is static. No static quality distinction determines whether definitions are degenerate - definitions and distinctions are degenerate by their very static nature - regardless of whether any distinction takes place to determine this or not. We are constantly defining Dynamic Quality. Consciousness is a process of defining Dynamic Quality.. > 6. It is NOT degenerate to define the terms and concepts of the MOQ because > the MOQ is already static intellectual. Disagree. Just because we are already being mystically degenerate doesn't mean that mystic degeneracy suddenly no longer exists. By simply existing we are being mystically degenerate whether we intend to be or not.. "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." > djh responded to a variation on this point: > ... 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: > This quote is talking about the Dynamic lived reality and the daily role that > concepts play in our lived experience. But this dispute is about what we can > and cannot define in a philosophy discussion on the internet. You CAN'T have > lived experience in this forum. Period. Never, ever gonna happen. All we have > are books and keyboards, dude. > > And I'm not talking about removing anything from reality, whatever THAT is > supposed to mean. I'm saying that the issue of degeneracy depends on WHAT you > are defining. Defining the mystic reality is degenerate. Defining words and > concepts is not. We are here to talk about the MOQ and that is not > degenerate. In fact, compared to the way most people in this world will spend > their day, it's probably the least degenerate thing you can do. djh responds: You seem to have not understood what I wrote here so I'll repeat it even more clearly - Like a menu does with the food - all static quality represents DQ. *Every thing* is an analogy.. "Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the dialecticians don't know that." And here's the other quote which you seem to want to ignore: "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. 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." > djh said: > > This is a quote of yours [dmb's] 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. > > > dmb replied: > Oh, David that's just stupid. Talking about the MOQ is the same as talking > the mystic reality because the MOQ talks about it? You're just undoing or > denying the separation that Pirsig calls for in that quote. You are > dismissing the most relevant piece of textual evidence with a rather absurd > and convoluted reversal of the main point! You weasel! > > > Look, this evidence further supports my simple contention that the MOQ is > static and intellectual and therefore definable. djh responds: If this is your contention then clearly you aren't interested in what I'm saying because I agree with that contention. Ugh.. Stupid question - Are you interested in good dmb? > dmb said: > And no! The whole MOQ is NOT "a description of DQ". As Pirsig says, DQ is the > focal point around which the concepts of the MOQ are arranged and he never > defines DQ itself. And when he does talk about it, he mostly talks about what > it is NOT. This is not some arbitrary rule about what is and is not sacred, > you know? This prohibition is not some commandment from the prophet. You're > supposed to UNDERSTAND WHY it is degenerate. It's very much part of > understanding Pirsig's work in general. On that score, David, you are not > making any sense. Pirsig's assertions about the degeneracy are predicated on > a hierarchical distinction between concepts and reality. You are employing > this distinction and denying at the same time. Clearly, you don't understand > it. djh responds: Or I understand that even by saying 'Dynamic Quality' we are defining it and thus ruining the ultimately undefined nature of reality… "By even using the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness of mystic reality. The use of the term 'Quality' sets up a pile of questions of its own that have nothing to do with mystic reality and walks away leaving them unanswered. Even the name, 'Quality,' was a kind of definition since it tended to associate mystic reality with certain fixed and limited understandings. Already he was in trouble. Was the mystic reality of the universe really more immanent in the higher-priced cuts of meat in the butcher shop? These were 'Quality' meats, weren't they? Was the butcher using the term incorrectly? Phaedrus had no answers." The MOQ is a description of DQ as everything is an analogous description of DQ. Including -dmb- the static terms DQ & sq.. "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality." > dmb said finally: > I think it's really very sad that you've come to this conclusion, that a > mystic is supposed to "avoid intellectual quality". That's just > anti-intellectualism and shows that Pirsig's efforts to explain the art of > rationality are just lost on you. You read ZAMM and concluded that the right > thing to do is run away from technology, science, rationality. John, Sylvia > and the hippies are the heroes of that piece, you think? And the title > character of LILA? We're supposed to emulate her intellectual emptiness? I'm > sure you don't realize what a vile disease this is, this > anti-intellectualsim. djh responds: Look at what I value dmb. I'm here enjoying an intellectual discussion with you here right now. If that's the case do you really think I'm anti-intellectual? Quality is the source of all things. There is nothing but a whole bunch of values in this universe.. Look at what folks value first - then try and understand what they're saying. This is how the MOQ (does what you like to emphasise) - expands rationality. The MOQ expands rationality by including values as part of its intellectual structure. Along these lines - a mystic isn't 'supposed to' avoid intellectual quality - that's just what a mystic does regardless. A mystic values DQ above all else. While the MOQ supports mysticism it expands the mystic perspective to harmoniously include it in an intellectual system with intellectual quality. The MOQ supports *both* perspectives depending on what's good. Degeneracy on the mystic level is intellectually good.. But too much mystic degeneracy aint' no good. A balance is what's best.. "In the past Phasdrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is." 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
