Hi all Dan: This seems right to me. Motorcycle maintenance is an excellent analogy for this ever-evolving intellectual journey we all are (hopefully) on. There is no real destination, no perfectly tuned bike. It takes time, care, and constant attention to keep that baby running right. Faulty logic, contradiction, and lack of intellectual coherence in this philosophy forum is the same as trying to tune a motorcycle with a monkey wrench. It just doesn't work.
The problem in this analogy is that you compare anorganic quality patterns "motorcycle maintanance" with social quality patterns"this forum". Anorganic quality patterns obey the laws of nature and logic much more convincing than the social patterns comming out of this forum which are much more dynamic. The social quality patterns who survive are the intellectual quality patterns which make common sense in the forum community. I think we have a tower of babel problem here, The closer we all want to get to DQ, the more we misunderstand each other. Kind regards Eddo 2013/7/29 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > 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 > 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
