dmb, 'Opinion' and 'understanding' are not synonyms in my dictionary. I was addressing only one point in my original statement, that you can label John Smith a novice and Paul Turner an expert, but it doesn't negate that the difference between their understanding is based on their different static pattern history.
Marsha > On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:40 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Marsha said to dmb: > > First I didn't mention a comparison between the John Smith's and Paul > Turner's opinion concerning the MoQ. Naturally Paul Turner's understanding > would be more informed. I was addressing only one point... > > > dmb says: > How in the world can you deny comparing Smith's and Turner's opinion of the > MOQ when that's exactly just did and everyone knows it? You said,.. > > "After reading LILA once, John Smith's understanding of the MoQ will exist > very differently than, let say, Paul Turner's understanding of the MoQ." > > And this was supposed to be YOUR example of how "these patterns pragmatically > exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history". > > I think anyone can see that your denial is totally incredible and shamelessly > dishonest. > > > > Marsha said to dmb: > > I've already told you that I find the cure/disease metaphor inappropriate, so > that makes no impression. > > > dmb says: > Inappropriate? Your complaint is contradicted by the evidence and it is > dishonest because I already showed the evidence proving that Pirsig himself > talks about the problem of SOM in medical metaphors, describing it as a > "genetic defect," as a "patient" on the operating table, and as a kind of > "paralysis". > > > "...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 cause of our current social crises, he would have said, is a genetic > defect within the nature of reason itself. And until this genetic defect is > cleared, the crises will continue. Our current modes of rationality are not > moving society forward into a better world." (ZAMM Ch 10) > > "Now, it should be stated at this point that the MOQ SUPPORTS this dominance > of intellect over society. ...But having said this, the MOQ goes on to say > that science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over > society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no > provision for morals." (ch 22 LILA) > > "Phaedrus thought that a MOQ could be a replacement for the paralyzing > intellectual system that is allowing all this destruction to go unchecked. > The paralysis of America is a paralysis of moral patterns. Morals can't > function normally because morals have been declared intelllectually illegal > by the subject-object metaphysics that dominate present social thought." (ch > 24 LILA) > > Your objection to medical metaphors is not just unsupported by the evidence, > it is contradicted by the evidence, and there is lots of it too. > > But you'll dishonestly repeat that objection over and over again anyway, > won't you? > > > > > 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
