Marsha "admitted" that Horse is to blame for Marsha's evasions:
As you know, I have been told not to write about my understanding of the
Intellectual Level. It was a request made in late 2010 by Horse, which you are
well aware of. If the accusation of evasion is based on this, I will admit
that it is a topic that I avoid.
Arlo replied:
No, Marsha, its not "based on this". It's based on the fact that DESPITE this
you continue to make comments implying intellect is equivalent to SOM, that you
continue to refute intellectual quality as anything more than 'reification',
avoid criticisms to incoherent comments by evoking a nihilistic relativism.
dmb says:
It's not just that Marsha continues to equate the defective intellect (SOM's)
with the fixed intellect (MOQ's), she also continues to evade the arguments and
evidence against this mistake. I guess it's a vicious circle wherein the bogus
equation tells her that there can be no legitimate arguments or evidence
against the bogus equation.
That's what Horse was saying to Marsha back in December of 2010. It's not just
that she was pressing the same bogus equation back then but refusing to
acknowledge the arguments and evidence against it. Let us not forget that
Pirsig had already explicitly addressed the issue and said that the bogus idea
only "undermines the MOQ". How does Marsha figure that she knows better than
all the serious students of the MOQ and better than the author himself? That's
just not a realistic possibility.
And yet she persists, regardless of the mountain of evidence and arguments
against it. She can't even be intellectually honest about her own point of view!
At the time, when she was saying "Intellectual patterns process from a
subject/object conceptual framework" and "the fourth level is a formalized
subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational,
objective knowledge," and adding "P.S. Bo was correct," just to rub it in I
suppose,...
Horse said "And you like to hide behind anything that suits your purposes.
Pirsig specifically rejected Bo's ideas and yet this was either: 1) Ignored by
you and others or 2) Pirsigs rejections are used as supporting evidence against
what they specifically reject - I.e. such as when Pirsig says X he really means
~X - he's just too dumb to understand what clever people say. So the problem
here would be that even if I had a note or an email showing that Pirsig
completely and totally rejected your ideas - you would either ignore what he
says or say that he really agrees with you - he's just too dumb to realise it!
This is what Bo did and this is how you supported Bo. So, if we're going down
the evidential road you need to find something that shows that Pirsig
specifically supports what you say. That way you can use it as evidence that
Pirsig supports you. Do you have anything?"
dmb continues:
That's the problem with all the excuses and other evasive nonsense; a bogus
idea holds its grip year after year and no growth or learning can occur. It's a
certain recipie for intellectual rot and death. It takes all of the quality out
of static intellectual quality.
Arlo chose one of the quotes Ron posted for starters:
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."
Arlo said to Marsha:
A few days ago you posted this: "I think that Paul Turner's two-context thesis
points to the MoQ as a representation of a budding new level" (which is Bo's
idea, that you say above is correct), but when called on this replied "I don't
need to discuss what think, and it has nothing to do with Bo." See that? It's
not people chasing down and demanding you articulate your idea about the
intellectual level, and you having to calmly remind everyone you are
'forbidden' to discuss it. Everyone knows you think intellect=SOM, it's the
evasions about this when you are called on it. In the above example, YOU
brought it up with your "new level" comment, YOU immediately got hostile ..when
you were called on it, and then tried to play stupid, "If there is, indeed, a
point of similarity between my thinking and Bo's SOL, that would not prove that
they are one in the same." I liked that last one, like people are too dumb to
remember the history of your posts, or unable to go back and find evidence. "Bo
is correct in thinking it would be best to describe the Intellectual Level as
the S/O level." "If there is, indeed, a point of similarity between my
thinking and Bo's SOL..." That. Right there, is but one example of the evasion,
of the ever-regressing football, of the hostile baiting over repeated comments
that treat intellect as if it's nothing more than SOM.
dmb says:
Yes, these evasions are fundamentally dishonest. Criticism is always answered
with weasel words and straw men. Hostile baiting is quickly followed by false
denials, rude dismissals, and irrelevant objections. Questions are asked only
to ignore the answer, and false accusations of refusing to answer often follow
a week or two later, as if you would forgot what you'd said five or fifty times
already.
It's not that complicated. What we have here are some people who cannot or will
not have an honest conversation about Pirsig's ideas. That's all there is to
it. WHY they won't or can't is a mystery me, but it's perfectly clear WHAT the
problem is.
Marsha on December 28, 2010:
"My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification. The
fourth level is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology,
mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as
reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation.
Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a
subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the
illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth
level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is
for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any
subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to
pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. P.S. Bo was
correct..."
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
