> 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 responded August 4th 2013: > > David, can there really be a "bad" mystic?
djh comments: Yes, there can. The new age folk come to mind who tend to blur the lines between what is scientific and what is mystic in an empirically incorrect way. Alternatively a good mystic will know what is intellectual and successfully avoid it so that they can clearly point to what is not it! > 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 responded August 4th 2013: > > So you're basically saying (quite correctly, by the way) that Marsha is > giving Context 2 of the MOQ priority over Context 1? djh comments: No, I'm saying Marsha is giving Context 1 priority over Context 2. [Please double check your contexts] But it's worse than that as I've been saying. I'd have no troubles if we had an actual Mystic on here talking about the value of a Dynamic understanding who knew the context from which they were speaking. However Marsha fails to see the clear difference between each context and ends up destroying the clarity found in both. > Ant McWatt continued August 4th 2013: > > 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.' djh comments: Isn't it intellectually valuable to talk to Dan about this and figure out exactly which of there two alternatives is correct? I mean, this conflict and difference of opinion, to me, is the whole awesome point of this place. Yes it's painful to deal with the total misunderstanding of another person, but unless we work through these differences of opinion, the culture of the MOQ can never get any better. > 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 responded August 4th 2013: > > 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. djh comments: However you'll note above Ant, that I said the following: "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." That is how you could be more clear in your "support of intellectual values and [speaking] out against anyone expounding anything against those values (aka Marsha)" by openly discussing with Marsha how she misunderstands the two contexts of the MOQ and how she could see the MOQ in a better way. That, to me, is the whole point of this intellectually discussion group. To intellectually discuss the intellectual content of what folks say. > Ant McWatt continued August 4th 2013: > > 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. djh: Awesome Ant, I look forward to it all. If you have better things to do then so be it. But I don't like to see you leave dismissing the value of intellectual disagreement. Again, that to me, is the whole point of an intellectual discussion group, to talk about and work through our *differences* in understanding. > Ant McWatt continued August 4th 2013: > > 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.' djh: Thank you Ant, does this mean though that there isn't merit in disagreeing with people on intellectual discussion groups while we give them compassion? Does this mean also, that there isn't after giving folks compassion - a static quality merit in a culture protecting itself from values which oppose it? Again, I don't want to see Marsha removed, just for you to acknowledge the intellectual quality of intellectual disagreement. This can be painful, ugly even, but I think unless we work through these understandings things won't get any better. That is a way we can protect ourselves from degeneracy. Rather than kicking people off or running away - to do the painful thing of working through our differences. 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
