[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> From: Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B329) In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Message-Id: <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:39:27 +0200 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Hello Davids I think I can follow both of you. Dmb sometimes make me crack up while Djh s= ometimes makes me worried. To express oneself is a problem because in some w= ay it is to a degree degenerate. Static, dynamic and ever-changing patterns are all we have to cling on to. W= ether we're looking back into the mirror or straight forward. The source of t= he Values are somewhere out there. J A >> djh said: >>=20 >>=20 >> "So sometimes degeneracy is good? " you ask. Yes, sometimes degeneracy i= s good. That's exactly right!=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> dmb replied: >>=20 >> Your claim is contradictory nonsense. According to Pirsig and the English= language, degeneracy is not good. Your claim is just plain stupid because t= here is no such thing as good degeneracy. That's WHY your claim is absurd. >=20 > djh responds: >=20 > "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate act= ivity." >=20 > 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 s= ense - socially degenerate - does that mean we should never have sex or defi= ctate? Degeneracy in one code is the quality of another. Anything static is= mystically degenerate - but that mystic degeneracy is statically good.=20 >=20 >=20 >> dmb continued: >> And this quote explains why the first part of the claim is wrong (intelle= ctual discussion is always degenerate).=20 >>=20 >> "The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from= the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophi= c tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks a= bout does. ...The static language of the Metaphysics of Quality will never c= apture the Dynamic reality of the world but some fingers point better than o= thers and as the world changes, old pointers and road maps tend to lose thei= r value." >>=20 >> The degeneracy in question depends on understanding the proper relationsh= ip between thought and reality. You're not getting this very simple point. Y= our whole case is predicated on a refusal to acknowledge the distinction bet= ween 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 abo= ve, some points should be quite clear. You are pretending that it does not m= atter WHAT you are defining. But the question of degeneracy totally hinges o= n WHAT you are defining. And the WHATS in question here are "concepts" and "= reality".=20 >>=20 >> 1. The MOQ is static and intellectual but reality is dynamic and undefina= ble. >=20 > Agree. >=20 >> 2. The MOQ should be separated from the mystic reality that it talks abou= t. >=20 > Agree. >=20 >> 3. The MOQ's static language will never capture the mystic reality. >=20 > Agree. >=20 >> 4. DQ cannot be defined and any definition of DQ is degenerate. >=20 > Agree. >=20 >> 5. This is the distinction that determines whether or not definitions ar= e degenerate. >=20 > Disagree. In the strictest mystic sense - all things are degenerate. Thi= s is the subtle point that you seem to be missing. A 'distinction' by its v= ery nature is static. No static quality distinction determines whether defi= nitions are degenerate - definitions and distinctions are degenerate by thei= r very static nature - regardless of whether any distinction takes place to d= etermine this or not. We are constantly defining Dynamic Quality. Consciou= sness is a process of defining Dynamic Quality.. >=20 >> 6. It is NOT degenerate to define the terms and concepts of the MOQ becau= se the MOQ is already static intellectual. >=20 > Disagree. Just because we are already being mystically degenerate doesn't= mean that mystic degeneracy suddenly no longer exists. By simply existing w= e are being mystically degenerate whether we intend to be or not.. >=20 > "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with f= ixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born =E2=80=94 an= d to whose birth no thought has been given." >=20 >> djh responded to a variation on this point: >> ... Dynamic Quality - the 'food' is constantly defined by everyone. Simp= ly BELIEVING that 'Thought cannot bring you closer to reality' does not sudd= enly change the fact that when you think you are removed from reality. The= removal happens regardless of what you believe. This removal - this discus= sion - is ultimately mystic degeneracy regardless of the static shine you ma= y want to put on it. >>=20 >>=20 >> dmb said: >> This quote is talking about the Dynamic lived reality and the daily role t= hat 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 w= e have are books and keyboards, dude.=20 >>=20 >> And I'm not talking about removing anything from reality, whatever THAT i= s supposed to mean. I'm saying that the issue of degeneracy depends on WHAT y= ou are defining. Defining the mystic reality is degenerate. Defining words a= nd concepts is not. We are here to talk about the MOQ and that is not degene= rate. In fact, compared to the way most people in this world will spend thei= r day, it's probably the least degenerate thing you can do. >=20 > djh responds: >=20 > You seem to have not understood what I wrote here so I'll repeat it even m= ore clearly - Like a menu does with the food - all static quality represen= ts DQ. *Every thing* is an analogy.. >=20 > "Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the dialectician= s don't know that."=20 >=20 > And here's the other quote which you seem to want to ignore: >=20 > "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be d= escribed is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions e= merge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So o= ne can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and u= ndefinable because definition never exhausts it." >=20 >> djh said: >>=20 >> This is a quote of yours [dmb's] verbatim: "I'm not even talking about th= e mystic reality. I'm talking about the MOQ, which "is static and should be s= eparated from the DQ it talks about." " Clearly this is a contradiction of y= ours here. You *are* talking about the mystic reality. According to the qu= ote you provided in the next sentence - the MOQ *talks about* DQ. >>=20 >>=20 >> dmb replied: >> Oh, David that's just stupid. Talking about the MOQ is the same as talkin= g the mystic reality because the MOQ talks about it? You're just undoing or d= enying the separation that Pirsig calls for in that quote. You are dismissin= g the most relevant piece of textual evidence with a rather absurd and convo= luted reversal of the main point! You weasel! >>=20 >>=20 >> Look, this evidence further supports my simple contention that the MOQ is= static and intellectual and therefore definable. >=20 > djh responds: >=20 > If this is your contention then clearly you aren't interested in what I'm s= aying because I agree with that contention. Ugh.. Stupid question - Are you= interested in good dmb? >=20 >> 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 ne= ver 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 sa= cred, you know? This prohibition is not some commandment from the prophet. Y= ou're supposed to UNDERSTAND WHY it is degenerate. It's very much part of un= derstanding Pirsig's work in general. On that score, David, you are not maki= ng any sense. Pirsig's assertions about the degeneracy are predicated on a h= ierarchical distinction between concepts and reality. You are employing this= distinction and denying at the same time. Clearly, you don't understand it.= >=20 > djh responds: >=20 > Or I understand that even by saying 'Dynamic Quality' we are defining it a= nd thus ruining the ultimately undefined nature of reality=E2=80=A6 >=20 > "By even using the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness o= f mystic reality. The use of the term 'Quality' sets up a pile of questions o= f 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 i= t tended to associate mystic reality with certain fixed and limited understa= ndings. Already he was in trouble. Was the mystic reality of the universe re= ally more immanent in the higher-priced cuts of meat in the butcher shop? Th= ese were 'Quality' meats, weren't they? Was the butcher using the term incor= rectly? Phaedrus had no answers." >=20 > The MOQ is a description of DQ as everything is an analogous description o= f DQ. Including -dmb- the static terms DQ & sq.. >=20 > "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be d= escribed is a process of defining Dynamic Quality." >=20 >> dmb said finally: >> I think it's really very sad that you've come to this conclusion, that a m= ystic is supposed to "avoid intellectual quality". That's just anti-intellec= tualism and shows that Pirsig's efforts to explain the art of rationality ar= e just lost on you. You read ZAMM and concluded that the right thing to do i= s run away from technology, science, rationality. John, Sylvia and the hippi= es 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 re= alize what a vile disease this is, this anti-intellectualsim. >=20 > djh responds: >=20 > Look at what I value dmb. I'm here enjoying an intellectual discussion wi= th you here right now. If that's the case do you really think I'm anti-intel= lectual? Quality is the source of all things. There is nothing but a whole b= unch of values in this universe.. Look at what folks value first - then tr= y and understand what they're saying. This is how the MOQ (does what you li= ke to emphasise) - expands rationality. The MOQ expands rationality by incl= uding values as part of its intellectual structure. =20 >=20 > Along these lines - a mystic isn't 'supposed to' avoid intellectual qualit= y - 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 t= o harmoniously include it in an intellectual system with intellectual qualit= y. The MOQ supports *both* perspectives depending on what's good. Degenerac= y on the mystic level is intellectually good.. But too much mystic degenerac= y aint' no good. A balance is what's best.. >=20 > "In the past Phasdrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Qua= lity alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always f= elt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no p= romise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that wh= ich does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this r= adical 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 s= tatic patterns is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about D= ynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to def= ine 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 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
