> 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.
djh: That is true from a static quality perspective. But there is another 'perspective' of the MOQ.. > dmb said: > 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. djh: A 'bogus move'. I like that. It suggests that we're here to play an intellectual chess game. That all we're interested in are intellectual static patterns of value and not much else. We're mano-a-mano arguing over what is the *truth*. Our chess board is exclusively the intellectual level. Any perspective presented which is outside that level is a 'bogus move'. Dmb - I know that you're frustrated with me. That's clear. The reason why you're frustrated with me however is also clear. You cannot for a moment comprehend that your beloved intellectual patterns could ever be anything but good. And most certainly not degenerate. We are what we value - or rather - our values are us. You value above all else (including DQ it seems) - the intellectual level. I too value the intellectual level. However I think that the MOQ expands rationality by allowing as a part of a rational intellectual discussion - a discussion of all values - not just intellectual values. Along these lines we can say that Dynamic Quality creates intellectual patterns - it is before intellectual patterns.. From the perspective of DQ - sq is degeneracy - evil even.. "[Dynamic Quality's] only perceived evil is static quality itself." - Lila > dmb said: > 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. djh: No, as I explained - the sublte point that you seem to be missing is that an *intellectual* distinction doesn't determine whether definitions are degenerate. Definitions *and* distinctions are mystically degenerate by simply being static things. Your intellectual blinders are on and that is the only perpsective that you value. You don't want to look outside these blinders and see that there is a whole other perspective which is beyond, before and actually creates these static patterns and distinctions which you talk about. I've responded to a post of yours in the past where you discuss how the MOQ expands rationality. That is the value you see in the MOQ. It's expansion of rationality. I agree that the MOQ expands rationality - How does the MOQ expand rationality? (Feel free to answer as I think this is where the core of your value of the intellectual level lies). The MOQ expands rationality by allowing us to discuss *all* values not just intellectual values. Included as part of all values are even those undefined better values which create intellectual patterns to begin with. From this Dynamic Quality perspective static quality is degenerate.. Here's a couple of RMP quotes to *intellectually* support my point.. "[Dynamic Quality's] only perceived evil is static quality itself." - Lila and of course.. "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." > dmb said: > 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." djh: Right - this statement has no *intellectual* value because this statement is about what is *before* the intellectual level. But from a mystic perspective - it's very important. The MOQ expands rationality by allowing us to *intellectually* discuss *all* values - not just intellectual ones. It also allows us to *intellectually* discuss and say how from a mystic perspective static quality is evil and degenerate. As RMP demonstrates in Lila... "[Dynamic Quality's] only perceived evil is static quality itself." - "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." > 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. djh: There are different pespectives of the MOQ dmb. There is the intellectual perspective which you seem to be stuck in. And there is also a 'perspective' of the MOQ which is *outside*, *before* and actually the 'perspective' which *creates* the intellectual level. This is the non-'perspective' of DQ. To repeat myself - the MOQ *expands rationality* by including this 'perspective' and other value perspectives as part of its metaphysical structure. From a DQ or strictly mystic understanding - static quality is evil and degenerate. RMP and myself can intellectually say that. Why can't you? 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
