dmb said to djh:
Your claim is contradictory nonsense. According to Pirsig and the English
language, degeneracy is not good.
djh replied to dmb:
.... 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 says:
What!? Okay, now I'm absolutely positive that you are deeply confused about the
meaning of the operative term: "degeneracy". It has become obvious at this
point that you are distorting this idea beyond all recognition. Here you have
basically said that all of static reality is degenerate and that degeneracy is
sometimes good. Both of these claims are so asinine that I'm embarrassed for
you. You are contradicting the dictionary AND the basic principle of Pirsig's
moral hierarchy. No wonder you're not making any sense! You've construed
absolutely everything as degenerate. That is the most unsubtle, ham-handed move
I've seen in quite a while. Sex is only degenerate to the extent that it is
allowed to trump higher values. It is only degenerate when it comes into
CONFLICT with higher values and wins that conflict. This is the same principle
that makes it degenerate to define the mystic reality. Like cheating on your
wife, it is degenerate precisely because to subordinate the higher value to
intellect.
Think about it for just a minute, David. If everything is degenerate, then the
word cannot be used to distinguish anything from anything else. If everything
is degenerate, then the idea is completely useless in settling any dispute or
resolving any conflict of values. If that's true, the MOQ doesn't even have a
moral hierarchy anymore. The whole world of static patterns is just a jumble of
values with no way to sort them or even know which way is up. Anyway, this
explains why you keep ignoring or dismissing the hierarchical point that I keep
making. Apparently, you don't see how meaningless the MOQ becomes when you make
this bogus, bogus move.
That is the little piece of stupidity that has ruined any chance of having an
intelligent conversation. You no longer talking about the MOQ but rather some
bizarre, other worldly nonsense. That's WHY you cannot rightly see the
distinction that determines whether or not definitions are degenerate.
Why do you disagree? Because "all things are degenerate," you said, and "this
is the subtle point that you seem to be missing." But of course that claim is
anything but subtle and it's also quite wrong. It erases the distinctions that
constitute the structure of the MOQ. Frankly, I'm shocked and horrified at the
sheer stupidity of this claim. And since it would apply to literally everything
in the encyclopedia, this claim is completely useless and meaningless.
Since "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" then your
point does nothing but distinguish anything or anyone from anything else. It
literally has no meaning and no bearing on any dispute. It is the most
pointless point you could make. — and to whose birth no thought has been given."
dmb had concluded:
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 replied:
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?
dmb says:
Well, I'm glad you're enjoying the conversation but I'm not having any fun at
all and, more importantly, I don't see any intellectual quality in what you are
saying. Have you failed to notice my complaints? I keep responding with fairly
strong words like "nonsense" and "stupidity" and "asinine". I keep pointing out
the various ways in which you are not making sense. Don't you realize that
these are comments on your LACK of intellectual quality? How harsh do I have to
get? How rude do I have to be for you to realize how low my opinion is?
Let me be quite clear, David. I think your argument is idiotic. It's stupid. In
fact, your response here (To ask if I REALLY think your position is
anti-intellectual) strikes me as unbelievable obtuse. Dude, you are explicitly
saying that all intellectual quality is degenerate. I don't see how it could be
possible to be any more anti-intellectual than you already are. Not only are
you trying to make a case that intellectual quality is inherently degenerate,
you are doing so in a manner that shows a disturbing lack of intellectual
quality. It's hostile, hateful and it makes no sense.
Sorry, David, but I'm convinced that talking to you is a waste of time. All you
managed to accomplish is to destroy any respect I had and made me into an
enemy.
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
