David Harding stated August 2nd 2013:
Ant,
What do you see as the point of this discussion group? Is it to have
intellectual discussion or something else? If so, what is it?
Full disclosure - I think the point of this discussion group is to
*intellectually* discuss the Metaphysics of Quality. If someone creates a
pattern of actively working against that point, then I think the discussion
group as a whole should firstly try and show that person an alternative (which
we have been doing for a long time) and if that person has shown no interest in
this alternative - then the group has a right to remove that person who poses a
threat to its values.
To be clear if Marsha was a good mystic...
Ant McWatt comments:
David, can there really be a "bad" mystic?
David Harding continued August 2nd 2013:
...like Katagiri Roshi say, and she clearly knew what was intellectual and what
wasn't - I would have no issue with that. If Marsha merely wanted to offer
quotes of other mystics(which is what you've claim she does), then I'd have no
issue with that either. In fact, I'd value both those things. But sadly,
Marsha does neither of those things. As DMB says; Marsha will not merely quote
other mystics but also offer her own views which continually muddy the clear
distinction between what is intellectual and mystical by confusing SOM with
certain intellectual values such as clarity, precision and the assumption that
things exist before we experience them.
Ant McWatt says:
So you're basically saying (quite correctly, by the way) that Marsha is giving
Context 2 of the MOQ priority over Context 1?
If so, her difficulty in clearly distinguishing between Context 1 and Context 2
(and understanding the implications of both perspectives) isn't exactly rare on
this Discussion Board. To quote an off-line e-mail of Paul Turner to me (dated
July 30th 2013):
'I had a look at the MD to see more of the thread in which your [post of July
28th to David Harding was embedded and was dismayed to see that my paper has
been construed by some as advocating the very thing I was trying to prevent,
i.e., arguing for the primacy of one context over the other. For instance, Dan
writes:
"I remember thinking how the "two contexts" was written to placate everyone...
we can all be correct in one context or the other. I agree with Arlo that we
should not strive to confine our perspective to one context or the other. They
are both limiting in their own fashion. Why do we want to confine our outlook
in that manner? By using both, we expand rationality rather than limit our
perspective."
Where did I suggest that we should confine ourselves to one context? Either
Dan has an axe to grind or my writing was so poor as to warrant this
interpretation. Either way, I can only be disappointed.'
David Harding continued August 2nd 2013:
Case in point:
"[djh] Can you ever see the value of thinking about static quality and making
the assumption that things exist before we think about them?
[Marsha] There might be good reasons in science to pretend [i.e. make an
assumption]."
Like you, I'm all for diversity on this forum. And I'm hesitant to call for
Marsha's removal, but I'm with DMB in that it's high time you spoke out in
support of intellectual values and spoke out against anyone expounding anything
against those values [aka Marsha].
Ant McWatt comments:
David, I've already done that recently in my MD post (to Marsha) of July 31st:
'I have learnt much about the MOQ from DMB's Discuss posts over the years. I
think he, Arlo, Paul Turner, Khoo Hock Aun and Gavin Gee-Clough (to name a few)
must have accelerated my own understanding of the MOQ by a decade if not more.
Though you have provided some good links and references over the years, I can't
remember reading one of your numerous posts and thinking "Hey, that's a good
way of putting of that!". The irony here is the former have applied their
knowledge of the MOQ artistically (you can tell that they've considered
Pirsig's ideas and played them through their own heads) while the production of
quotes is very static.'
And, just to make sure everyone got the message (!???) in the FIRST LINE of my
MD post (to Dan Glover) of July 31st: :
'My concern, above all, is the future intellectual quality of this Discussion
group.'
David, I'm sorry about this but I don't think I can be any clearer about my
"support of intellectual values and [speaking] out against anyone expounding
anything against those values (aka Marsha)" as regards this Discussion group.
I have made my point clear about supporting the priority of "intellectual
discussion" for this philosophical group but I'm not joining in on a "witch
hunt" of any sort. Sorry about this but if I want to deal with the infantile
values of a playgroup, I'll open up a nursery. As Paul Turner noted to me, just
yesterday:
'The MD is going through a weird phase. I suspect it's very unattractive for
newcomers, which is a shame.'
In fact, it's also become "very unattractive" for this "old comer" too so I'm
going to unsubscribe from this Discussion group later today. Maybe David
Granger or someone else with a similar academic background can "take the slack"
but I AM not doing it any more. I have my own MOQ work to be getting on with
such as the new cut of the theatrical version of the "On The Road with Robert
Pirsig" movie (recently announced on the Facebook page for robertpirsig.org),
the numerous short films of last December's MSU Chautauqua to edit and upload,
reviews of "Patrick Doorly's forthcoming "The Truth About Art" book, Alan
McManus's recently published "Only Say The Word" book and my own academic and
teaching work to be getting on with.
You know David when Khoo unsubscribed (and I really don't think that was down
to any personal issue in his life as someone here recently speculated), I
thought then that the days of my own subscription to this group were numbered.
I will check in every few months to see if things have improved radically
regarding the intellectual quality of the posts, and if it has, then I'll
re-consider my position. But for now, I'm outta here.
Finally, I'll leave with you two quotes from the Dalai Lama. I hope you all
read AND think about these carefully:
Dalai Lama
August 2nd 2013
'We need to take action to develop compassion, to create inner peace
within ourselves and to share that inner peace with our family and friends.
Peace and warm-heartedness can then spread through the community just as
ripples radiate out across the water when you drop a pebble into a pond.'
AND
Dalai Lama
8 November 2012
'When we have inner peace, we can be at peace with those around us. When our
community is in a state of peace, it can share that peace with neighbouring
communities and so on. When we feel love and kindness toward others, it not
only makes others feel loved and cared for, but it helps us also to develop
inner happiness and peace.'
.
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
