Ian said to dmb:
...You don't need the "anti-intellectual slogans" response. As I have said when
you see those, you are seeing a "reaction" to the narrow Context 2 view of
intellect attempting to dominate Context 1 - a defensive reaction against the
dominant ideology, as I also said. As Paul pointed out, neither view is awarded
priority, and the defensive actions would be unnecessary if the dominant
ideology simply recognised that it was. Again, as said many times, it's
never been a matter of being "anti-intellectual" - simply a matter of restoring
a balance of intellectual views across the contexts, not allowing a narrow
SOMist (Context 2) view of intellect to dominate. ...
[And earlier, Ian wrote]:...Yes it's a philosophy discussion group - but it is
not a discussion group necessarily confined by the standards of existing
philosophical academe.
dmb says:
Look at what you're saying, Ian. For years now I have been complaining about
the anti-intellectualism that results from confusing the disease (SOM) with the
cure (MOQ). Here you have been caught red-handed doing exactly that. Here you
have equated "context 2" with "a narrow SOMist view of intellect" and you've
suggested that academic standards could somehow harm or threaten our
philosophical discussions of the MOQ.
This is the crucial mistake that I've complained about and tried to explain
HUNDREDS OF TIMES! How many times will it take? I have supplied a mountain of
evidence from Pirsig's books to dispute this misreading of the MOQ.
That's why Arlo may have cried a little when he read your statement, Ian. He
understands this point but it's quite clear that you (and Marsha) have been
totally incorrigible for many, many moons. Remember Paul's efforts to explain
how ZAMM is all about a root expansion of rationality? That should have been
more than enough to knock out this bogus anti-intellectualism. And now you guys
are totally missing the point once again.
If you equate the MOQ's intellectual level with SOM, then you have missed the
point. If you equate the MOQ's pragmatic theory of truth with SOM, then you
have missed the point. If you equate intellectual quality with academic
standards, then you have missed the point. Sir, you have most certainly missed
the point. And Marsha never fails to miss the point. After a few years of this,
you know, a guy is likely to lose his patience.
Nobody thinks we should allow "a narrow SOMist view of intellect to dominate".
But what does the MOQ's moral code say? Once you realize that the MOQ's fourth
level is not a disease and is not SOM, then you can see how it IS THE CURE that
replaces SOM.
What can I say to convince you that you, Marsha and others continue to make
this very epic mistake? If textual evidence and hundreds of explanations and
begging and pleading won't work, then what can be done? Reasonable people are
persuaded by reasons but you and Marsha have made any kind of reason or
philosophy or intellectual quality into the enemy!
You're both clinging desperately to a stale, confusing, paralyzing idea that
never made sense in the first place. This confusion has been tragically
disruptive for the better part of a decade. It's a freaking nightmare!
Arlo wiped away his tears and said to Ian:
Let's start with Paul's basic definition of "context two".
"Context (2) is the articulation of a particular intellectual static pattern -
the 'plain of understanding' - of the MOQ." (Turner, 2013)
How in the hell do you move from this to saying that context two is "a narrow
SOMist view"? Are you, like Bo, so hung up in the idea that intellectual
patterns are ipso facto "narrow SOMist" that even the articulation of the MOQ
becomes "SOMist" by virtue of being an intellectual pattern?
dmb says:
Yes, exactly. With or without Bo's "help", Ian has been caught red-handed
equating the MOQ's intellect with "a narrow SOMist view of intellect". This
equates Pirsig's solution (MOQ) with the problem he eliminated (SOM). This
bogus equation is a foolproof recipe for anti-intellectualism. If you and
Marsha could see the substance of this criticism, then you couldn't these
charges of "anti-intellectualism" as a personal attack. By the same token,
you've misconstrued this criticism as a personal attack because you can't or
won't see the intellectual merit in it.
Arlo also said to Ian:
...Nowhere is this [Paul's] paper do I find any support for the idea that
'context two' is 'a narrow SOMist view'. I realize I'm quoting quite a bit,
but given your comment and your implication that it aligns with Paul's paper I
think its worth it. So one final quote.
Context two is "pragmatic high quality explanations of how the world operates
in accordance with the assumption that values are the ubiquitous, empirical
element of an evolving universe." (Turner, 2013)
dmb says:
Yep. Even before Paul's essay, the MOQ's pragmatic theory of truth was
constantly being confused with SOM's correspondence theory of objective Truth
or with Plato's fixed and eternal Truth. Again, this equate the cure with the
disease and the solution is mistaken for the problem it was supposed to solve.
This is an epic blunder. It utterly ruins the MOQ. And it's simply wrong. There
is no good reason to believe it and many good reasons not to believe it.
Pirsig tells us "exactly what is meant" by the MOQ's pragmatic theory of truth.
This truth theory specifically rejects the very things that you and Marsha
attribute attribute to it. Look for yourself. And then think very carefully
about Pirsig's explanations. I think they quite clearly contradict your bogus
anti-intellectualism.
"James said, 'Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a
category distinct from good, and coordinate with it.' He said, 'The true is the
name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief.' TRUTH IS A
SPECIES OF GOOD. That was right on. That was EXACTLY what is meant by the
Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a static intellectual pattern WITHIN a larger
entity called Quality." (Lila -- Emphasis is Pirsig's)
“. . . the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth.
If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're
permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to the
'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or
excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more
than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One
seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the
knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be
taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along."
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. I can't shove these
ideas into you mind. You have to reach out and take hold of them yourself. Try
it, will you?
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
