On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:36 AM, X Acto wrote:
> Dmb criticized:
>> And the final claim is extremely objectionable too. Patterns don't exist
>> relative to an individual's life history. That claim is just silly
>> solipsistic subjectivism. Static pattens are socially constructed over the
>> course of a culture's history and development. An individual's life history
>> will affect their ability to perceive the static patterns within the mythos
>> but those patterns exist regardless of whether or not any particular
>> individual is capable of seeing them or not.
>
> Marsha replied:
> There is nothing solipsistically subjective in this statement. "Solipsistic
> subjectivism" is a label that you have applied, but never explained. For
> understanding, there is a dependency on the individuals static pattern life
> history.
>
> "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance left one enormous metaphysical
> problem unanswered that became the central driving reason for the expansion
> of the Metaphysics of Quality into a second book called Lila. This problem
> was: if Quality is a constant, why does it seem so variable? Why do people
> have different opinions about it? The answer became: The quality that was
> referred to in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance can be subdivided
> into Dynamic Quality and static quality. Dynamic Quality is a stream of
> quality events going on and on forever, always at the cutting edge of the
> present. But in the wake of this cutting edge are static patterns of value.
> These are memories, customs and patterns of nature. The reason there is a
> difference between individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic
> Quality is a constant, these static patterns are different for everyone
> because each person has a different static pattern of life history. Both
> the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment.
> That is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not
> complete uniformity."
>
> [Ron]
> The conflict here is in regard to meaning, for example Marsha states that
> "for
> understanding" and I'm going to take this to mean ALL understanding since
> this is how she applies the many truths statement to mean each individuals
> "truth"
> "there is a dependancy on the individuals static pattern life history."
> Dave B accuses her of the philosophic stance of "subjectivism" a
> philosophical
> tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all
> measure
> and law. This certainly seems to be how Marsha is interpreting what Pirsig
> states,
> but what is being neglected are social level patterns of quality in this
> statement and
> what is also being neglected is Bob's closing statement that there is some
> uniformity
> but not complete uniformity of value judgements.
> The value judgements which are uniform include the calls for clarity and
> precision
> in communication, include the concepts of truth and beauty for simply no other
> reason than the meaningful exchange of ideas within a social structure of
> value.
>
> When Marsha claims that her reading of Pirsig supports her contention that
> all calls for meaning, clarity and precision are totally dependant on the
> individual
> life history she excludes social patterns of value to suit her own rhetorical
> needs to win the arguement with Dave B. She is also understood to be
> supporting
> subjectivism in this manner according the primacy of subjective(individual)
> experience which seems to only serve to benefit and defend Marshas ability
> to say whatever she wants without any criticism as to the clarity of what she
> says
> and means.
>
> The charge of Solopsism may apply since Marsha is asserting the primacy of
> individual experience in her explanations and neglecting social level patterns
> of value (uniformity of value) Descates "I think therefore I am" which Pirsig
> corrects with "17th century culture exists therefore I think therefore I am"
> But Marsha can deny this charge if not soley on the merit that she claims
> the individual (self) does not exist. One has to ask what then is she hanging
> all her explanations that accord the primacy of the individual on if that
> primacy
> is held not to exist?
> Again, this does not explain anything, better or otherwise.
>
> This explanation is begining to show all the trappings of a religous
> explanation
> where any contradiction in meaning and unsound reasoning is explained away
> as the incomprehension of the ineffiable. "It doesent make sense because
> MoQ is beyond reason" replace MoQ with God and the bible and you get
> pretty much the same thing.
> The irony is that it is these sorts of people that respond the harshest to any
> religous contributers here when their own brand of explanation is on par.
>
> Its the snotty self rightous postmodernist temperment in which they
> delve out their own criticisms which is disturbing ala they can dish it
> out but they can't take it.
>
> It's about time this matter was addressed, I think most of the conflicts
> I have had with other contributers revolves around this very subject.
>
> thnx
> 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
