Arlo said to DH Harding:
First, as I said to DMB, you're never gonna kick that football, David. Never.
Second, until you understand that Marsha's mistake is rooted in
"SOM=intellect", you're never going to understand why your 'context analysis'
of her is wrong. It's not that she 'values DQ' (whatever that means), it's her
ongoing confusion of intellect-reificiation-SOM.
Harding replied to Arlo:
Goodness Arlo, I've said multiple times even directly to you that Marsha makes
the SOM=intellect mistake. My very last post to you said exactly this: "And
dmb's right when he points out that Marsha appears to have misread ZMM and its
riling against SOM as riling against intellect and thus cannot distinguish
between the cure or the disease.."
...Anyway here's where we differ... The question isn't *if* Marsha confuses
SOM with intellect but *WHY*. People only do what they do because of what they
value.. *WHY* does Marsha confuse SOM with the cure? That is the "root" of
the issue. Being that I value the MOQ - I think that values are at the "root"
of everything. ...Marsha appears so enamoured with the insight that DQ is the
source of all things she is refusing to make an intellectual pattern out of
this insight which would result in her being able to move into context 2 of the
MOQ. ...Unless you can show Marsha this is her mistake, she won't be
interested and nothing will change. Because it's clear that pointing out the
intellectual mistake of SOM=Intellect to her is going to get you nowhere until
you show her the *root mistake* of over valuing DQ and thus not appreciating
the actual difference between DQ and sq…
dmb says:
Since the archives are loaded with posts wherein Marsha fails to distinguish
the cure from the disease, David, getting you to agree that she's making this
mistake isn't exactly a grand victory. But it's a good start. I don't know if
we can ever get to the "root cause" but I also don't see why we need to. Even
further, your way of framing the issue gives her way too much credit and let's
her off the hook, as if her mistake isn't really a mistake but just a
difference in values.
Long story, short; you'd like to suppose that the love of mysticism or Buddhism
or meditation or experience or whatever leads to a denigration of static
intellectual values. You think her love of DQ leads her to made the bogus
equation (wherein intellect=SOM, wherein static intellectual values are
reifications, etc..). But I think that is the crucial mistake and it leads her
to misunderstand the relations between the static and the Dynamic, which leads
her to misunderstand Buddhism's relation to the MOQ, mysticism's relation to
the MOQ and the relation between concepts and experience in general. That one
crucial mistake makes a huge mess of all of that and more. This what I've been
saying for a long time but, obviously, Marsha has no interest in dealing with
this criticism.
One of the ways this mistake show up in her bogus Buddhism, for example, is to
use quotes from books on Buddhism against the MOQ's the idea of static
intellectual patterns. It's not that the quotes are wrong or that the MOQ
disagrees with the quotes. Many times one could put them side by side with
quotes from Pirsig AS HE"S ATTACKING THE DISEASE. If they were used to support
the MOQ's attack on SOM they might be helpful and illuminating to those who
don't understand what SOM is. But because Marsha equates SOM with the MOQ's
intellect, she uses these quotes against the MOQ's intellect, against the cure,
against the MOQ's theory of truth, against other philosophers who've also
rejected that same disease.
As far as I can tell, nobody around here is opposed to Buddhism or meditation
or experience. That is not the problem. It's the rigid and stubborn persistence
of her confusion about all those things. That's the problem. It is just a
matter of failing to comprehend idea, failing to make crucial intellectual
distinctions. It's not that complicated, you know? These are just conceptual
errors and misreadings. It's not some big mystery, David. The woman is simply
wrong about some very basic terms and concepts.
And even if there were hidden values and motives behind her mistakes, how are
they ever going to be discovered without honestly discussing those mistakes?
This is never going to be addressed as long as she continues to evade the
substance of the matter. As Arlo says, that's never going to happen. That's why
I keep saying that she has no business being here.
I think she's just here because she's lonely, or negative attention is better
than nothing, or some personal need that has nothing to do with metaphysical
discussions. How obnoxious is that?
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
