dmb, Is this the best you have to offer? Is this the type of philosophical discussion for which you long?
I can only repeat that I'm not buying your rhetoric. I am at the MD to explore RMP's Metaphysics of Quality, and the MoQ's relationship to Buddhism, and the way they both add quality to actually living a life. I am not here to accept your interpretations, opinions and judgements as Holy Writ. I'll leave you to your smallness. Marsha On Aug 14, 2013, at 8:44 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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
