Horse, I do not feel obliged to defend myself against projections, misrepresentations, sarcasm, irony, parody and insults, which does not represent a fair discussion. For example, I should argue that I am not a postmodernism psychopath? I cannot relate to dmb's complaints or accusations within any statement I have ever made. If he would present my exact statements and cite the precise post (subject and time&date) as context, I will try to explain.
Recently I wrote to dmb: On Sep 5, 2013, at 2:38 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > Until you can admit that you might be wrong, that you might need correcting, > you will never learn. In other words, you will never learn. Wrong about your misrepresentations? For example, you've repeatedly said that I don't understand the difference between Dynamic Quality and static quality. I have forever said that the difference is Dynamic Quality is unpatterned, while static quality is patterned? Am I wrong? --- Where was the answer to my question? Marsha On Sep 19, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha > > Given that, up until now, you have pretty much avoided engaging in > philosophical conversation with DMB and various others, David's post > addresses the major points that you have failed to address. It is succinct > and to the point! It is also a good synopsis of how DQ relates within the MoQ > framework. > DMB, Arlo etc. have, time and time again, stated their criticisms clearly, > with evidence and with reasons and you have chosen to avoid discussion of > these criticisms. > If you sincerely wish to engage in discussion with others on this list then > I'm sure that your points will be debated fairly. > > It also seems fairly obvious (to me anyway) that within the post Dave > identifies and addresses the points to which you have previously failed to > respond and yet you are still insisting that these points are again re-stated > - even though they have been stated previously many times. > > Perhaps now you will debate seriously with others on this list. > > So, within the above context, my opinion is still that Dave's post was a > bloody good one! > > Cheers > > Horse > > On 19/09/2013 07:49, MarshaV wrote: >> Hi Horse, >> >> This dmb post might be considered "bloody good" within the frame of a >> sophomore writing class, but as effective, philosophical argumentation it >> sucks! Let him state clearly his criticism and present clear, documented >> evidence and reasons to justify his claims. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Sep 18, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What a bloody good post :) >>> >>> Cheers Dave >>> >>> Horse >>> >>> On 18/09/2013 20:18, david buchanan wrote: >>>> In the "Questions for Marsha" thread, Arlo said to Ron: >>>> >>>> Marsha's "neti neti" is another way of saying "undefined". No one disputes >>>> this. No one has said Dynamic Quality is definable. [...] So once >>>> we've left the meditative trance on the mountaintop, once we're immersed >>>> in a metaphysical dialogue, meaning is important. Once we call that >>>> undefined 'neti neti' by the term "Quality" or "Dynamic Quality" or >>>> "Value" or "Experience", we are pointing to something salient and >>>> meaningful. Seeing this primary undefined as Quality/value is the root of >>>> all Pirsig's subsequent writings. It 'points to' meaning, even if >>>> 'definition' is impossible. As with you, Ron, I'm not sure what sense >>>> it makes to suggest that 'not this, not that' is the evolutionary force. >>>> All this does is say "we can't define the evolutionary force". Hell, even >>>> the attribute "evolutionary" points to meaning, as does "force". To be >>>> genuine, Marsha would have to object to Pirsig referring to the undefined >>>> as "Quality" as even this violates the 'neti, neti' by assigni >> ng >>>> specific meaning to an undefinable. >>>> >>>> >>>> dmb says: >>>> >>>> Yea, I guess everybody knows that DQ can't be defined. The problem is that >>>> Marsha is constantly invoking this indefinability without understanding >>>> what it actually means. It's important to understand WHY it can't be >>>> defined and HOW Pirsig's metaphysics can be built around DQ despite its >>>> ineffability. You probably don't need an explanation, Arlo, but let me >>>> put one on the table for anyone who's interested in the MOQ and/or not >>>> interested in nihilistic relativism. >>>> >>>> One way to approach this is to recall the question that started the >>>> metaphysical ball rolling in the first place. Pirsig was just trying to >>>> teach some teenagers how to write but a faculty asked him if undefined >>>> quality is subjective or objective. Well, that's exactly where the answer >>>> would be "neither this nor that". Subject-Object metaphysics says it has >>>> to be one or the other and that the former isn't really real. Within SOM, >>>> quality is usually considered to be "just" subjective. >>>> >>>> As we can see, I think, Marsha's half-baked invocations of DQ's >>>> indefinability and constantly citing her own meditative experience has the >>>> effective of turning the MOQ into some kind of solipsistic subjectivism. >>>> Thus the cure is re-infected with the disease; the MOQ is converted back >>>> into the worst kind of SOMism. This not only introduces the relativism and >>>> the "psychic solitary confinement" of SOM but it also turns Quality back >>>> into that whimsical and capricious "whatever you like". The MOQ is not >>>> just whatever you like. It is static, knowable, divisible, definable and >>>> intelligible, as any metaphysic must be. And that's what's really in >>>> dispute. Basically, Marsha cannot accept the idea that she, or anyone >>>> else, can be right or wrong about metaphysics. Sigh. So static patterns >>>> aren't necessarily real or true and DQ is just not this and not that. >>>> Nothing is real and nothing is right or wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> Pirsig says the MOQ is a "contraction in terms" precisely because >>>> metaphysics must be definable and yet the whole thing is built around an >>>> undefined term. And it's no accident, of course that this basic claim is >>>> reflected in the MOQ's first and most basic distinction: static and >>>> Dynamic. The most succinct statement about this distinction tells us quite >>>> simply and clearly that concepts are static and reality is Dynamic. That >>>> sums it all up pretty well but that pithy little slogan is packed with >>>> meaning and import. Once this distinction is clear, the distinction >>>> between concepts and reality, everything else in the MOQ can be understood >>>> in that light. >>>> >>>> One thing we really must NOT do, of course, is try to understand the MOQ's >>>> "reality" as objective or as a "reality" that is opposed to mere >>>> appearance, as Ron pointed out. One of the reasons we can rightly refer to >>>> subject-object dualism as a "metaphysics" is because subjects and objects >>>> are considered to be the primary realities which make experience possible. >>>> In philosophy they are the conditions for the possibility of experience, >>>> what reality must really be like prior to experience. Metaphysics is sort >>>> of infamous for making up all kinds of explanations involving structures >>>> of reality that underly appearance or are beyond the realm of experience. >>>> Pirsig doesn't do that. That's what he means when he says DQ is NOT a >>>> metaphysical chess piece. In the history of metaphysics, this is pretty >>>> damn radical. To cut things into static and Dynamic is a big move. The >>>> distinction between concepts and reality REPLACES the distinction between >>>> subjects and objects. It replaces the dist >> inc >>>> tion between appearance and reality. DQ is not intellectually knowable or >>>> definable but it is not beyond appearances. It is direct, everyday >>>> experience, the cutting edge of experience and we all know it directly at >>>> every moment. Obviously, we experience concepts too. They're quite >>>> familiar and knowable and not at all beyond appearances. In a very >>>> important sense, Pirsig's MOQ does not posit any metaphysical explanations >>>> or ontological structures that supposedly give rise to experience. >>>> Instead, the starting point is experience itself. Reality is experience >>>> itself. This is radical empiricism, where experience and reality are the >>>> same thing. And if we look to the hot stove example, it easy to show how >>>> "experience" is this sense is neither this nor that and yet it is quite >>>> real and directly known. >>>> >>>> "Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will >>>> verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an >>>> undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is >>>> negative. This low quality is not just a vague, wooly-headed, >>>> crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience." (LILA) >>>> >>>> One might be unmoved by arguments about the effects of hot stoves on human >>>> flesh but experience will keep one honest because there's no arguing with >>>> reality. The one who refuses to listen to those static warnings will >>>> certainly get burned. Concepts lead us through experience well or badly >>>> and that's all that real or true can ever mean within the pragmatics of >>>> the MOQ. The MOQ rejects the correspondence theory of truth precisely >>>> because it construes truth as a representation of the "real" structure of >>>> reality. In the MOQ, reality is not a structure or entity of any kind but >>>> rather the ongoing process of experience itself. This reality is >>>> indefinite, an ever-changing flux, an aesthetic continuum, undefined yet >>>> always charged with value, either positive or negative, rightness or >>>> wrongness. >>>> >>>> And, as the hot stove example shows, we can even act on this value even >>>> before we have a chance to think about it. We respond to reality >>>> immediately all the time. This is not some special mountain-top experience >>>> or even a particular meditative disciple. It the immediate of flux of >>>> life, direct everyday experience. As the native American mystics show, >>>> there's no need to make a big fuss about or turn it into some exotic >>>> esoterica. Zen ain't supposed to be fancy either, as in "just fixing," and >>>> both of these associations are consistent with the MOQ non-theoretical >>>> starting point: experience as such. >>>> >>>> This is the cure that kills the disease. It's static and knowable and >>>> definable and we can contrast the MOQ with all the metaphysical systems >>>> that put the real reality outside of experience. Experience is no longer >>>> merely subjective nor is it contrasted with reality. Instead, experience >>>> IS reality and all static concepts are derived from that experiential >>>> reality. >>>> >>>> Just one more point: >>>> Please notice what happens to concepts in this view. Since they are all >>>> derived from experience, they are all secondary formations, even the >>>> concepts that supposedly stand for primary realities. There are many such >>>> concepts even outside of philosophy. This includes subjects and objects, >>>> of course, but also gravity and God, time and space, heaven and hell. In >>>> the MOQ, no concept can rightly be taken as referring to a primary >>>> ontological reality. This is the Copernican revolution writ large. Just as >>>> the astronomer's new conceptualization virtually changed the very >>>> structure of the universe, the MOQ arranges everything around a new center >>>> point. The MOQ puts everything else in orbit around DQ. It's neither this >>>> nor that, but it's the focal point of everything we can say about the MOQ. >>>> >>>> And this focal point, around which all of the MOQ's concepts are arranged, >>>> is NOT Marsha's private pet or some room for which only she has the key. >>>> That attitude is way too sanctimonious and it's as pretentious as a monkey >>>> in a tux. >> 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 > > -- > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > — Frank Zappa > > > 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
