John to Andre:
I am sorry if my use of rhetoric gives you that impression, Andre. I
assure you with all sincerity that I'm not interested in merely
ridiculing or misleading in an attempt to make you look foolish. But I
do believe there are some grave mis-interpretations at play here in our
reiteration of Pirsgi's work and I guarantee I will work my damnedest to
root them out.
Andre:
Okay John, lets have a look then.
John:
My idea of the higher levels being DQ to the lower is just that - an
idea. Some ideas are better than others. If mine is bad, fine, it'll die
of its own in-aptness. But you don't think there's something inherently
wrong in positing ideas, do you Andre? How "intellectual" is that? It
sounds like a social rejection rather.
Andre:
You are referring to Phaedrus'law (intended to have the humor of a
Parkinsen's law) which states that:
'The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon
is infinite' (ZMM,p107). This is why you find nothing wrong with asking
the most absurd/ridiculous questions not realizing they invite the most
absurd/ridiculous answers.
You justify these statements by arguing that they are posited for
rhetorical reasons. If I do not like your rhetoric then there is
something amiss with me. The problem with these questions, as Phaedrus
found out, is that they lead to chaos...'Scientifically produced
antiscience-chaos'.
In your case socially produced antisocial-chaos. I use the designation
'social' as I do not think they are intellectual at all and if they are
they have a defect in it. At the very best I can only agree with what
Phaedrus argues:'The cause of our current social crisis...is a genetic
defect within the nature of reason itself. And until this genetic defect
is cleared, the crisis will continue. Our current modes of rationality
(which 'inform' your questions John) are not moving society forward into
a better world. They are taking it further and further from that better
world'(ZMM, p 110).
Do you see how ridiculous it is to state that 'the higher levels being
DQ to the lower'? This is beyond 'rhetorical' purposes John. This, once
again, points to a fundamental misunderstanding/ representation of
Pirsig's MoQ.
This is supposedly an intellectual/philosophical discussion site of
Pirsig's MoQ...then why do you throw ridiculous socially informed
statements in your posts that only seek social answers?
'To understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that
/part/ of the landscape, /inseparable /from it, which /must /be
understood, is a figure in the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To
see the landscape without seeing this figure is not to see the landscape
at all. To reject that part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis
of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha entirely'(ZMM, p76).
What you seem to be doing John is that what you do when you generate
these silly statements, designed (as you claim) to be rhetorical
devises, is to miss the Buddha entirely. And it is for social purposes
seeking social//answers.
Perhaps it is better to stay with your mate Platt. You can both feed on
each other and instead of having the Budddha in the background you play
with the Giant as s/he's watching you/waiting for you and ready to
embrace you anytime,anyplace,anywhere.
John:
What I mean is, we get a feeling of injustice or unfairness first, then
rationalize it after the fact. Nobody does it the other way around
unless they are completely rule-bound (social)
Andre:
I have a very strong impression that our 'lawmakers' do not rely on
direct experience John. They are very rule bound and build, where
necessary upon the rules...section 5 c, subsection 1-g paragraph 6
clause 8 to be amended by... . It's a political process guided not
necessarily by intellectual values as such but, as said by social norms.
Over and out.
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
