dmb,
As I stated on August 26th, I have nothing to defend. I haven't presented an argument or even an explanation concerning the Intellectual Level. I haven't even given any thought to the subject since late 2009. You can string together a few out-of-context phrases and misrepresent them forever, but that does not constitute a philosophical argument. Your tactics suggest poor quality. There is a difference between a snarky wordsmith and a philosopher. I'm not going anywhere, and remain unmoved (except by laughter) by yelping straw dogs. "A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counterargument. The term straw man derives from the use of scarecrows for military practice, such as charges. In reality, a scarecrow is far easier to defeat than an actual person. "The straw man argument, also called straw dog or scarecrow, deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side. This can be done by leaving out key points of an opposing argument, quoting a person’s words out of context, or presenting a particular person’s poor defense as the entire defense of an opposing side. In the worst case, a straw man is literally an imagined person who weakly defends an argument and can be easily defeated." http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:07 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha said: > > Why do I so often mention mindfulness & meditation and "agrees with my > experience"? Here is two simple paragraphs from 'Mindfulness in Plain > English' that might explain my persistence: [...] I hope you will forgive the > above use of the word 'objectively' and replace it with 'directly'. RMP > wrote "Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a > subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not > by reasoning of any kind." The practice of meditation/mindfulness is the > pursuit of Quality, both Dynamic and static, beyond the limitations of > language. It does not end the appreciation of language or intellect or > static patterns, it actually enhances the wisdom associated the appreciation. > > > > Ron replied to Marsha: > > I can forgive the use of the term "objectivly" and replace it with "directly" > but the meaning of "objective" still asserts itself in the phrases : "You > will learn for the first time what is (truly) happening to you, around you > and within you." "I want to understand the (true) nature of life." "You'll > find yourself observing things objectively, exactly as they are". It > continues to assert an "ultimate truth" that we can experience "exactly" as > it "is". Marsha, it just doesent get much more objective. I believe it is > this "objective" type of attitude which is causing alot of the conflict. > Direct experience is the test of any and all ideas, it is the proving ground > and in this way we may only gain a better "greater" understanding of ideas we > already posess, but it can not be known as it "is". Our knowledge > (understanding) of direct experience is always culturally derived. > > > > dmb says: > > Yes, this is another version of the mistake that Marsha makes over and over > again. It confuses and conflates the static with the Dynamic. Why does she so > often mention mindfulness & meditation as if it granted her some kind of > ultimate truth? Because she is confused about the meaning of the > static-Dynamic distinction. The paragraphs are worded quite badly, such that > they expose this mistake. The quotes frame the issue as a Platonist or SOMer > would, and they're very much at odds with the MOQ in that respect. > Direct experience is neither true nor false. What we SAY about experience can > be true or false. The concepts we use can agree with experience or not. But > direct experience itself is independent of and prior to language. It doesn't > even make sense to say that meditation or mindfulness "agrees with > experience" because it is experience. Truth, in the MOQ, is a static > intellectual pattern, a high-quality concept. Reality itself, the > pre-intellectual cutting edge of experience, is real in the sense that we > know it from experience but it can never be true or false. Static pattens can > be true or false, but DQ is always independent of and prior to our > intellectual descriptions. > > That's what Pirsig means when he says that DQ, "the central reality of the > MOQ," can be "understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of > any kind." Pirsig explains this point over and over again. In the basic flux > of experience, Pirsig says, the distinctions of reflective thought have not > yet emerged in the forms we make them. That is why DQ cannot be defined. > Definitions are static and truths are static intellectual patterns. But > Marsha wants experience itself to be some kind of ultimate Truth and she > wants static patterns to be the ever-changing stream of experience. > > That is, more or less, backwards. It's preposterous. It's approximately the > opposite of what the MOQ says about the static and the Dynamic and the > distinction between them. > > "...James had condensed this description to a single sentence: 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." (364-5) > > Sadly, Marsha's confusion does as much damage to mysticism as it does to the > theory of truth. She tries to trump static intellectual truth with some kind > of mystical truth. Trouble is, for philosophical mystics like Pirsig, there > is no such thing as the ultimate truth. > > "Some of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics: ..They > share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside > language; that language splits things up into parts while the true nature of > reality is undivided." (Lila 63) This early quote fits quite neatly with > James's single sentence, which Pirsig quotes 200 pages later. Language is > static and discontinuous; it chops things up. The central reality is outside > of language, is undivided, continuous and flowing. That's why DQ cannot be > defined and cannot be called true or false. If it's outside of language and > prior to intellectual abstractions, then we simply cannot talk about it. > That's why it cannot be understood by reasoning of any kind. > > But the MOQ and its theory of truth CAN be understood by reasoning. The > concepts, definitions and distinctions of the MOQ can and should be > understood. And that's what I'm talking about when I criticize Marsha's > confusions. > > "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. ...The static language of the Metaphysics of Quality will never > capture the Dynamic reality of the world...." > > If the practice of meditation really did enhance the appreciation of > language, concepts and intellectual static patterns, then Marsha must not be > doing it right because she's still profoundly confused about the MOQ and it's > central distinction, it's central enemy and the nature of its mission. But > her mixed up views are NOT the result of meditation and she will never, ever > understand the MOQ until she takes the static intellectual patterns > seriously. Since the MOQ itself is static and intellectual, that's what has > to be grasped. But her anti-intellectual bias will never allow that. > > Thus, she is paralyzed by a catch-22 from hell. She's stuck down in a flakey, > new age hole and she hates the only ladder that can get her out of it. She > even sees the rescue effort as a form of persecution, sees reasons and > evidence as a kind of violence. Ironically, the way out of the trap looks > like a trap to her. Because DQ cannot be defined or conceptually known by > reasoning of any kind, she figures, the MOQ's definitions and concepts cannot > be defined or conceptually known. > > What a train wreck! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Marsha:> Why do I so often mention mindfulness & meditation and "agrees with > my experience"? Here is two simple paragraphs from 'Mindfulness in Plain > English' that might explain my persistence:> > "Vipassana is a form of mental > training that will teach you to experience the world in an entirely new way. > You will learn for the first time what is truly happening to you, around you > and within you. It is a process of self discovery, a participatory > investigation in which you observe your own experiences while participating > in them, and as they occur. The practice must be approached with this > attitude.> > "Never mind what I have been taught. Forget about theories and > prejudgments and stereotypes. I want to understand the true nature of life. I > want to know what this experience of being alive really is. I want to > apprehend the true and deepest qualities of life, and I don't want to just > accept somebody else' > s explanation. I want to see it for myself." If you pursue your meditation > practice with this attitude, you will succeed. You'll find yourself observing > things objectively, exactly as they are -- flowing and changing from moment > to moment. Life then takes on an unbelievable richness which cannot be > described. It has to be experienced."> > Marsha:> I hope you will forgive the > above use of the word 'objectively' and replace it with 'directly'. RMP > wrote "Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a > subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not > by reasoning of any kind." The practice of meditation/mindfulness is the > pursuit of Quality, both Dynamic and static, beyond the limitations of > language. It does not end the appreciation of language or intellect or > static patterns, it actually enhances the wisdom associated the appreciation. > Anyways... > > > 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
