[Ian] ... you "know" I have a broader of view of how we should interpret intellect. I couldn't possibly have meant that interpretation, given the years of exchanges gone before.
[Arlo] Well, all I "know" is that Paul's paper has ignited a very reductionist dichotomy, and you have seemed to have come out in favor of this "separate but valid dual-interpretation" idea. If I 'knew' what you thought before, I have to say that it seems this "intellect -> static -> SOM -> anti-intellect" path is one you- at least seem- to support. In your defense of Marsha, for example, you seem to support this notion that she is "context one" and DMB is "context two", and it is against this reductionist binary I am arguing. You seem to interpret DMB's demands, for example for coherence and clarity as somehow inherently "SOM", even going so far as to imply that intellectual quality is akin to 'scientific objectivism'. Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns. Maybe you'll come back and tell me you don't think this, but it certainly comes across that way to me. Take your recent complaint that this forum shouldn't be "confined by the standards of existing philosophical academe". What "standards" are you referring to? Clarity? Coherence? Precision? I gather you must, because this was prefaced by: All I will says is, to your points about sloppiness and gibberish vs clarity and precision. Yes it's a philosophy discussion group - but it is not a discussion group necessarily confined by the standards of existing philosophical academe." So, somehow 'sloppiness' and 'gibberish' are valid "standards of discourse" for "context one", a thought you propose as: The different perspectives within MoQ demand different standards of discourse. The objective, scientistic, syllogistic standards of context 2 are not privileged to dominate context 1 - what those are in context 1 is harder to say (by definition), but respect and democracy are aspects of it. So you reduced "clarity and precision" to "objective, scientistic, syllogistic standards", and make that claim that "context one" is, somehow, exempt from these. Do you see that right there, just like in saying "not allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) view of intellect to dominate" you've reduced "context two" to "objective, scientistic" discourse? I mean, again, maybe this is just sloppy rhetoric or sloppy thinking, but don't put the fault on me. Its your words here. So, again, I'll come out and say that the implication that these two contexts are "separate but valid interpretations", that one is somehow 'SOM', or 'objective, scientistic' and the other is free from the confines of clarity and precision and coherence, is about as wrong as one can be. [Ian] Let me try to rephrase that one phrase as intended. "Not allowing a narrow, SOMist, Context 2 view to dominate." [Arlo] I don't see any shift in meaning here, Ian. Its like you really don't understand what Paul meant by "context two". So let me offer, again, what Paul has said, and then try to make sense of your statement in that light. Context (2) is the articulation of a particular intellectual static pattern - the “plain of understanding” - of the MOQ. In this second, more ontological context we see a transition from the way that Dynamic Quality produces all intellectual value judgments to the explanations that are the product of those value judgments. ... These are the 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) So who do you think is arguing for "a narrow, SOMist, Context 2 view", and what about their argument do you deduce "SOMist" from? As I see it, in your statement above about clarity and precision being 'objective' and 'scientistic', that either you're arguing for context two to become less clear and precise, or you think that being clear and precise somehow negates one 'accepting' context one. That someone concerned with high quality ontological patterns does so only by renouncing the epistemological view of 'context one', rather than seeing that coherence and clarity as high-quality intellectual patterns derives FROM, and is not opposed to, the epistemological view that Quality is the source of all things. 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
