David Harding said to Marsha:
“If we are to ever discuss metaphysics we have to 'pretend' that these static
qualities existed before we ever encountered them.” “This was the whole point
of Paul Turners two contexts. In the second context static quality exists
before we encounter it. In context one (which is exclusively what [Marsha is]
interested in) static quality does not exist before we encounter it. DMB is
naturally trying to talk to you from context two because in order to have an
intellectual discussion we must assume that static quality exists before we
encounter it - you're clearly refusing to make this assumption - can you not
see how this can be construed by DMB as being 'anti-intellectual'?”
Ant McWatt commented:
David, I think you need both the Two Contexts that Paul was talking about to
fully understand and to fully apply the MOQ. ...If you confine yourself to
Context 1 then you going to be paralysed into no-action or some sort of
relativism where the static patterns are considered to have equal
value/no-value; if you confine yourself just to Context 2, then you’re going to
start making the error that the MOQ is stating something absolute about the
world. The MOQ is just a “working postulation” and I think this what the Two
Contexts is designed to help illustrate.
dmb says:
Hmmm. I think David H has misconstrued the situation rather badly (and I'm
quite certain that Marsha has produced nothing but evasions and dismissals).
It's not just inaccurate to say that I'm trying to talk about the MOQ from
context 2 rather than context 1, I think it's a bit slanderous. As I see it,
Marsha does not comprehend the MOQ's first and most basic distinction (between
DQ and sq) and understanding these terms and their relations is to understand
how both contexts are integrated. Marsha has a half-baked version of one half
of the MOQ.
I've been making this case for several years now. For those who have paid
attention to these efforts, like Arlo and unlike Doctor McWatt, there is no
serious doubt about her anti-intellectualism or her empty relativism. One of
the major factors in coming to these bogus positions is the way intellectual
static patterns are equated with the metaphysics of substance, with scientific
objectivity, with Platonism, with absolutist claims about what's really real. I
mean, it's not as if context two of the MOQ commits one to the metaphysical
positions that are rejected by the MOQ. This case is also one I have been
making for several years - as I often put it, this is where Marsha treats the
cure (the MOQ's static patterns) as if they were the disease (SOM).
I suppose this particular error has quite a lot to do with the fact that Marsha
more or less agrees with old Bo's formula wherein the MOQ's fourth level is
identical to SOM. You know, since SOM is the enemy, SOM and intellectual static
quality are the same thing, then intellectual static quality is the enemy. But,
as I've been trying to explain over and over for many years, this is a huge
mistake. In the MOQ, DQ is the substance and source of all static quality,
including intellectual static patterns. Static patterns are not the enemy.
Intellect is not the enemy. In the MOQ, it is no longer the usurper. Intellect
is already subordinated to DQ. Or as I have liked to point out so often over
the years, with great help from Paul Turner, one of Pirsig's central missions
is to effect a root expansion of rationality - by giving DQ a central role
within rationality. DQ and sq are supposed to work together. The two contexts
are supposed to be integrated.
That is never, ever going to happen as long as thought, language and philosophy
are constantly misconstrued as the enemy. This happens all the time in a
bewildering variety of ways. Earlier today in this thread, for example,...
Ian said:
It's a battle we're all involved in beyond MD, because the objective
scientistic position (View 2) is the dominating ideology generally.
dmb says:
See that? In a very matter-of-fact way, as if it's just obviously true, Ian has
equated the MOQ's structured hierarchy of static pattens (context 2) with the
objective scientific position. But that is the very thing rejected by the MOQ!
That is SOM. Ian is making the same epic blunder as Marsha does. No wonder he
doesn't see any good reason for my criticisms!
Years go by and these guys still do not see the point. It's just dismissed as
mere insult and yet the actual criticisms are never engaged, sadly not even by
Doc McWatt. This should have been settle many, many moons ago. But no.
Sigh.
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
