Marsha: Oh my, now your conclusion is that I confuse the static with the Dynamic? And your evidence of a "sound case" is to be found in statements like "Marsha cannot comprehend my contention that she's mixed up precisely because of the way she's mixed up." But I have stated many times my understanding of Dynamic Quality is as unpatterned value and my understanding of static quality is as patterned value; that is clearly the difference. And further you complain that my exploring and seeking agreement with experience is an example selfishness and the antithesis of the MoQ, while you reify the MoQ into "the cure". I will continue to accept that you have different value judgements than mine as a result of our different histories and current patterns of values, but I find no good reason to adopt them. Your volume of material is empty.
On Aug 28, 2013, at 6:34 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
