> [dmb] > 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.
[djh] Aside from your accusation that I've misconstrued the situation rather badly dmb - I agree with everything you've written above. > 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. [djh] This is our very slight point of difference. You're right that DQ and sq can 'work together' through mastery of motorcycle maintenance or of philosophical discussion for instance - they do. In fact, this is how RMP integrates the mysticism of the East with the intellectualism of the West. And this is your point and I agree with it. - We master our ideas on things so that the quality is at such a level we needn't even think about it anymore. This is where the DQ can be found in all static things. But alternatively - if we take these two qualities at face value - Dynamic Quality by definition is *not static quality*. That couldn't be any more opposed. And when DQ & sq are in conflict this can *also* help to move things along. Like the quality of the Priests and the quality of the Brujo. In this way a balance between folks like the Brujo doing whatever they want and following DQ & folks like the Priests who want to keep order is important. What I'm getting at is there are two perspectives on how DQ and sq 'work together' - in the first [Eastern] instance they work together through mastery and putting sq to sleep. In the second instance they work together in the traditionally Western sense through conflict. So bringing this back my point where I say you're trying to talk context 2 and Marsha context 1. There is no 'context' where you are simultaneously both contexts. A metaphysics is by definition a static quality thing. Thus when discussing metaphysics you need to make the assumption that things exist before you experience them (context 2). You've been pointing out logical inconsistencies to Marsha in the hopes that she would play intellectual discussion ball (which is the point of this place) - instead she wants to confine herself to the first context and just claim that it's all an illusion or 'just ideas' or something.. My point was (other than removing Marsha from the forum) this will get you nowhere. The only way you can point out to Marsha the second context is by talking about things from her perspective.. That said - I've done this and she still refuses to play ball.. > [dmb] > 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] > 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. [djh] And I agree with all this. No matter how many times you try and point out an alternative [intellectual] perspective to Marsha - she's not interested. Vagueness is her thing - intellectual precision not. It's high time we improved the level of discussion here. 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
