Marsha said:
I think that Paul Turner's two-context thesis points to the MoQ as a
representation of a budding new level with one aspect rooted in the
intellectual level and one aspect moving beyond it.
Arlo replied:
Bo has a discussion forum set up to discuss this. Enjoy.
dmb says:
Exactly. Marsha is parroting Bodvar's equation wherein the intellectual level
is equated with SOM. This means that the MOQ's intellectual level retains that
genetic defect. As I keep trying to explain, this confuses the disease with the
cure and it is one of the crucial mistakes that leads directly to
anti-intellectualism.
This is definitely NOT what Paul's essay says. If I understand it - and he
seems to think that I do - the meaning of Paul's essay was totally lost on
Marsha, among others.
As Paul Turner said to Ant just a few days ago (July 30th 2013): Paul "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" and said he "can only be disappointed" by such interpretations.
A few weeks ago, when we were still looking forward to Paul's essay (May 29th),
I had asked Ant to chime in on Marsha's strange views.
"In the meantime", I said to Doc McWatt, "I wonder what you think of Marsha's
two perspectives. The first one seems pretty straight forward; the MOQ is the
set of ideas provided by Pirsig in his writings. But I'd like to know what you
make of Marsha's second perspective. The second one, she says, 'is the MoQ as
Reality = Quality (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it:
Value(unpatterned/patterned). In the second view, I am saying that the
Metaphysics of Quality denotes Reality = Value(Dynamic/static). Metaphysics as
first, or fundamental, principle. --- The first view might be explained as
'pointing to the moon', and the second view as 'direct experience.' It looks
like unintelligible gibberish to me, I'd said to Ant and then asked, "Do you
have any idea what this means?"
I think this is the kind of thing that prompted Paul to grab his pen in the
first place.
And then there is Marsha's "ugly" description, as Harding puts it, of static
patterns as "ever-changing", i.e. static patterns as neither static nor
patterned. I guess that's one way to put it but I usually just like to say that
it's contradictory nonsense. Her anti-intellectualism comes in 31 flavors,
apparently, but I'm only serving three little samples so that I don't ruin your
appetite for dinner.
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
