Ron said to Marsha (about dmb):
...Dave is making a sound case, you are not. Refusing to do so on "dynamic"
grounds is a tactic that can not work on an e-mail forum. ... Unfortunately
philosophic scientific explanation, even those expressions that hold value as
central in their explanations, are best expressed via clear coherent terms
everyone can understand. Until then, all you are ever going to be viewed as
here is a vengeful troll that is constantly trying to poop in the punch bowl.
The idea is to persuade.
Andre said to dmb (about Marsha):
...What Lucy is exploring is her own interpretation of experience which, as a
result of her different history and current patterns of value (i.e. her
personal development) seems far from adequate. This type of 'consciousness'
will not solve anything. It certainly will not make the world a little better.
It is confused, partial and self-centered; the direct antithesis of Pirsig's
MoQ which leads to a 'going beyond', 'overcoming', 'transcending', 'expansion
of' the narrow, partial, egotistically oriented behaviours and reasoning we are
all too familiar with (just turn on the news tonight).
dmb says:
It's not exactly ironic but it is a very curious situation. Marsha cannot
comprehend my contention that she's mixed up precisely because of the way she's
mixed up. In various ways, she keeps confusing the static with the Dynamic,
confusing the MOQ with the mystic reality itself. Her refusal to discuss my
criticisms of her misunderstandings of MOQ's key concepts and central
distinctions is predicated on those same misunderstandings. And so she is
intellectually paralyzed, completely stuck in her own funhouse mirror. She
doesn't seem to realize it, but she's refusing nothing less than the MOQ itself
because the MOQ is nothing but a set of concepts and distinctions. That's just
what philosophy is. Without that, you just don't have any metaphysics at all.
Metaphysics is not reality and this is what the static-Dynamic split is all
about but Marsha doesn't understand what this distinction means. As a result,
no matter what anyone says about the MOQ, Marsha will misinterpret every w
ord, even the quotes. Thus her confirmation bias is impervious to reason and
evidence.
So she's become an insufferable troll, one that undermines the MOQ itself and
the purpose of this forum.
Sigh.
There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence against her intellectually paralyzing confusing
but she can't see it as evidence because of her intellectually paralyzing
confusing. It's a "catch-22' from hell - on steroids. She's so mixed up that
she can't understand what counts as evidence and can't understand what the
evidence means anyway.
And, yes, it is a moral issue. What she's doing is not simply incorrect, it's
also morally wrong. She's undermining intellectual values for her own selfish
reasons. As I've said many times, I think it's obvious that her refusals and
evasions are self-serving, face-saving, social level bullshit. That's harsh, I
know, but the archives are so chock full of this self-centered nonsense is
about as clear and obvious as any physical fact. Her bullshit is as real as
rocks and trees.
"I don't mind the Quality, it's just that all the classical talk about it ISN'T
Quality. Quality is just a focal point around which a lot of intellectual
furniture is getting re-arranged." (ZAMM, p.223)
" 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the
former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.'
Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic
subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality."
"Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling
to Dynamic Quality is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about
Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to
define what it is... Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that
he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from
any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns
themselves" (Robert Pirsig in Lila).
"The thing to be analyzed, is not Quality, but those peculiar habits of
thought called 'squareness' that sometimes prevent us from seeing it. ..The
subject for analysis, the patient on the table, was no longer Quality, but
analysis itself. Quality was healthy and in good shape. Analysis, however,
seemed to have something wrong with it that prevented it from seeing the
obvious." (ZAMM 218-9)
"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the
Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic
tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about
does."
"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is
a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A
metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any
metaphysics."
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
