> [dmb] > Right. You've been saying so for a while. I didn't mean to say that it was > your first time but rather that saying so is just the starting point. I meant > to suggest that you're not quite seeing what this mistake means, not seeing > the consequences and implications. So I tried to show how that one mistake > (intellect=SOM) appears in all her other mistakes. Put another way, all of > her mistakes are just various permutations of that bogus equation. As Arlo > pointed out, one variation of this mistake barely alters the bogus equation: > intellect=reification. You can go through the whole litany of errors like > that.
[djh] Does her mistake of intellect=SOM explain why she is always talking about Buddhism or says that static patterns are ever-changing or does it explain her continual focus on the insight that Dynamic Quality is the source of all things? What *does* explain her value of all these things is that anyone who values these things is a Mystic. But there's a difference between a good mystic and a bad one. As I've said so many times before - a good mystic *knows* what is intellectual and what isn't and avoids the intellectual and is thus able to point directly at this source. A Zen master for instance - will purposely avoid saying anything intellectual so that you don't have anything to grasp. All those Zen Koans deliberately avoid the intellectual. A bad mystic however doesn't make the distinction between static quality and Dynamic Quality quite so clear and so it just becomes a bit of a mess between the two things and ends up being what you call 'anti-intellectual'. > [dmb continued] > ..We're not here to second guess the motives for anyone professed beliefs but > to talk about ideas, to give reasons and evidence for reaching conclusions. > Other kinds of values are among those reasons, of course, but the only honest > and reasonable way to deal with disagreements is to exchange reasons and > evidence in some intelligible manner. As every Monty Python fan knows, > argument and mere contradiction are two different things. Similarly, > understanding and mere parroting of the words are two different things. [djh] Your calls for 'talking about ideas, giving reasons and evidence for reaching conclusions' are intellectual demands. Entirely reasonable to ask for these on an intellectual discussion board. I values these things because I value intellectual discussion.. But what *are* intellectual values about? Your claim that "we're not here to second guess the motives for anyone professed beliefs" completely misunderstands what intellectual values actually are. Tell me the chapters of Lila which *don't* second guess values. Heck huge chunks of the book are *nothing but* 'second guessing' values! That's like saying to RMP don't write about the history of the 20th Century.. You're second guessing it! You can never really know for sure what the values are that drove the Victorians or the Hippies or the Nazis or the Communists or the Capitalists so don't second guess it. Don't think about it.. Or even more importantly - like saying to RMP - don't write or think about the Brujo and the Priests - don't second guess what they value - you'll never know for sure so don't bother! So with that I'm more than happy to 'second guess' what Marsha values because that is an intellectual exercise which has *very* high value culturally. There is a huge strength here to the MOQ which I think you're missing. A great thing that RMP shows in Lila is how if you look at the world as composed of values rather than 'truths' a whole new bunch great insights can be found.. So again - I think you believe that Marsha should automatically have these intellectual values if she is to partake in this discussion forum. I don't think that is an unreasonable demand at all. However, here we are, Marsha's not going anywhere and it's clear that she is confused about what is and is not intellectual.. I get that you're totally frustrated with pointing out to her what the distinction is.. But trouble is dmb - RMP's writing isn't what we'd call traditionally academic or set in dry intellectual tones. I mean, just look at the title of his first book! It includes a word in it which is *not* intellectual. What I'm getting at is that this leads folks to values other than the intellectual patterns this forum is set up to discuss.. Yes Marsha's misguided coming onto an intellectual discussion forum to discuss these values - but her mistake could be a lot more surprising or unpredictable… > [dmb continued] > AND, David, your framing also sort of buys into her mistake. She misconstrues > the relations between the static and the Dynamic as an opposition, as almost > mutually exclusive, so that one can "value" one over the other. No, that's > just another way her key mistake shows up. In the MOQ, properly understood, > intellect is already within and subordinate to DQ and DQ is the value-force > that selects clarity and precision over incoherent drivel. They are supposed > to be partners in the MOQ's cured intellect. That's what Marsha cannot > discern and your framing suggest that you can't either. To "value" DQ all by > itself, to the exclusion of static values, is to cling to chaos. That's what > she "values", David: chaos. She confuses it with freedom. At least the > hippies knew how to have fun with their chaos. [djh] I don't disagree with any of this good writing except the point that I'm buying into her mistake. But just quickly - this point that she inadvertently values chaos by exclusively valuing DQ has been my point for a very long time.. Anyway back to my not buying into her mistake.. I'll put it another way - RMP used the distinction of the competing qualities of romantic quality and classic quality to show that Quality could combine the two... "This is the source of the trouble. Persons tend to think and feel exclusively in one mode or the other and in doing so tend to misunderstand and underestimate what the other mode is all about. But no one is willing to give up the truth as he sees it, and as far as I know, no one now living has any real reconciliation of these truths or modes. There is no point at which these visions of reality are unified." So simply recognising that this division exists (that some folks value DQ too much or vice versa) doesn't mean that I'm arguing that they should be forever in opposition as you are suggesting. In fact, I'm sure Marsha agrees that they shouldn't be in opposition and thinks that she has reconciled them by claiming that static patterns are 'ever-changing'. This is why the root of the mistake is in her misunderstanding of the first division of the MOQ. So if you fully take into account what Marsha says and values this gives you a much clearer picture of what is going on than if you just pass this off as 'second guessing'. > [djh previously] > ...It's as if she has Dynamic Quality viewing glasses on and refuses to take > them off even when faced with nothing but static quality. For a start that's > why she insists that static quality patterns are 'ever-changing'.... > > [dmb responded] > That's the kind of comment that makes me think you're giving her too much > credit and letting her off the hook. > > Firstly, glasses like ones in Pirsig's analogy are always static. Always. As > far as the analogy goes, DQ is what you'd get if you took the glasses off. > There is no such thing as DQ glasses. The concept is contradictory and quite > impossible. Okay, it's a bad analogy and you've confused it with another pair of glasses but I think I have made my point clearer above that someones values aren't unimportant - they're the whole thing and it's good on an intellectual discussion board to talk about them! Yes, Marsha is wrong to not value intellectual values on such a forum. But what are her values? If she was a good Mystic I don't think that she'd be anywhere near as offensive. But if you're a bad one who doesn't understand what is and is not static then that is a different story. > [dmb continued] > Even further, this little bit of nonsense is supposed to explain Marsha's > description of static patterns as ever-changing. That just let's her believe > that contradictory nonsense is somehow an expression of value differences. > Why is it so difficult to accept the idea that somebody can just be wrong or > that somebody can just misunderstand something? Happens billions of times > every day. If somebody says 2 + 2 = 5, why can we just say they're wrong? Why > try to psychoanalyze the situation? Human error is as common as the rain. Par > for the course. But tenacious incorrigibility is a kind of affliction. It > ain't good. Because dmb - if you'll read ZMM and Lila you'll learn that values are fundamental not truths! Someone being wrong doesn't really tell us anything. What do they value which is creating low intellectual quality? That's an interesting and valuable *intellectual* question. Neither ZMM or Lila would ever have been written if RMP didn't ask that question!! And it's a question which you are refusing to discuss (and then discussing it anyway) - so keep discussing it and stop complaining. :-) 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
