ARLO said to Ian:
Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free
oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns.
Marsha denied the accusation:
Provide proof that I ever made a statement that "incoherence is a necessary
'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns."
dmb said to Marsha:
Arlo and I are both complaining about a very specific and concrete example of
sloppy gibberish. Like I said, if Ian didn't mean to equate context two with
narrow SOMist thinking, then he is a very bad writer because that's what his
sentence means. Arlo and I both quoted this specific example, among others,
wherein Ian expressed his concern for "allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2)
view of intellect to dominate." Do you have anything relevant to say about the
substance of the matter?
Marsha denied the accusation again:
...As my name was included in the paragraph, I can only state I made no such
statement about Paul Turner's theory; I never mentioned SOM and there was no
reason to put me into the statement with the "Like Marsha, you seem to think
that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma
of intellectual patterns."
Arlo accused Marsha of evading the issue concerning SOM and the MOQ's intellect:
My comment had nothing to do with Paul Turner's theory, and its being
'challenged' on the basis of an implied quote. Aside from the semantic reality
that "seem to think" is not "say" or "mention", but ascertained from the
dialogue, the substance of the comment, any one following along, or able to
view the archives, will have no problem ascertaining its truth.
Marsha denied that accusation too:
Even if "any one following along" or "able to view the archives" came to such a
conclusion, and there is no proof that anyone following along or reviewing the
archives have come to that conclusion, that wouldn't make it true. It's a
version of the "everybody knows" fallacy where one asserts that common
knowledge must be true.
Ron, as he put it, "took a quick 15 min to scan the archives and just randomly
picking from the 2009-2010 selection. It did'nt take me long to find a quick
summary of Marsha's point of view." If I wanted to spend a day or so I
probably could reach the file size limit. But I think her last quote says it
best.
Marsha on May 11, 2009:
"Where does it pertain to the conversation we were having? I was defending
that patterns in the Intellectual Level were all of the subject/object variety.
"
Marsha on May 1, 2009:
"Bo is correct in thinking it would be best to describe the Intellectual Level
as the S/O level. It seems to me that all these levels contain patterns that
represent conceptually constructed entities of both the general and particular
type, and that as concepts they are all a product of a post-s/o thinking. And
patterns in the Intellectual Level include the awareness of having separated
subject from object. OMG, that feels good. Now it's time to go off dancing
with a moon shadow for a while."
Marsha on May 4, 2010:
"Intellectual patterns create false boundaries, giving the illusion of
independence, or thingness. For me understand this fourth level to represent a
formalized subject/object level where the subjective is supposedly stripped
from the experience to reveal an objective truth."
Marsha on May 11, 2010
"I understand intellectual patterns to be built on the SOM premise. From the
East: 'For the purpose of discussion you can arrange words and give them
meaning, but the fact remains that all knowledge is a form of ignorance'."
Ron commented on this batch of quotes:
...I think it's fairly evident there is not very much left to interpretation.
Intellectual patterns are built on the SOM premise, SOM is to be rejected. I do
not think it is much of a deduction to conclude that intellectual patterns are
to be rejected. "All knowledge is ignorance" is another way of stating
"incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of
intellectual patterns."
Although, a coherent, clear argument can be made and has been made concerning
this subject matter, the contributers being criticized simply refuse to be held
to any criteria of coherence and clarity in their explanations and arguments
concerning it. They refuse to engage in any rhetorical dialog that responds to
the subject matter. ...
dmb says:
Thanks for bringing the rope, Ron. The quotes you selected are more than enough
to show that Marsha's denials are not even close to being true. And I'm sure
there are dozens more in the archives, if anyone cared to look. These quotes
show that Arlo's accusations were fair and accurate. They show, I think,
exactly what I've been saying for years; Marsha has confused the disease (SOM)
with the cure (MOQ). And it's a very simple matter to see how this confusion of
the problem with the solution leads directly to a virulent form of
anti-intellectualism.
And it's not just that Marsha is all mixed up about the MOQ, her suspicious
hatred of intellectual quality is a foolproof recipe for being a total failure
in any philosophical discussion group. She fundamentally opposes the whole
game, simply refuses to do what this place was made for, and consequently does
nothing but spoil the party. Her contribution to the discussions are zip, zero,
nada. Unless she has an unknown medical problem, I don't think it would be
unfair to accuse Marsha of being a shameless liar. Like a corrupt politician,
she denies her own words and her point of view even though it's on the record.
Thanks again, Ron. I can just re-post this collection of quotes whenever the
bullshit denials start flowing out of her keyboard again. Very handy.
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
