Ant, That's quite an affirmation! Thank you
Ron > On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nice post Ron. I'm not sure there is anything in there that - unusually - > that I'd add (or substract) from your replies to John Carl here, > > Thanks for that, > > Ant > > ---------------------------------------- > > On Jun 30, 2014, at 5:24 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ron, > > > On 6/29/14, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > wrote: > >>>> On Jun 28, 2014, at 11:27 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 4) Deep Ecology. This is an also hihgly intellectuall stance that >>>> questions intellect's anthropocentric ontology. This was what I >>>> meant earlier about "antihumanism" - faith in human-centric intellect >>>> leads to absolute catastrophe. Human rationality isn't our proper >>>> source of values, Nature is our proper source of values for out of her >>>> we sprang and in her we have our being. >>>> >>>> So the one aspect of anti-intellectualism I'd cop to, is that last. >>>> My whole philosophical journey was rooted there. I don't believe in >>>> weeding out good plants. >>> >>> Ron: >>> Two problems that need clarification John. >>> >>> First, intellect's anthropocentric ontology. What else could intellect >>> Be but anthropocentric? >> >> Jc: Intellect is absolutely anthropocentric - that's the problem. >> there are big issues with all forms of anthropocentrism but the cheif >> one is this world isn't "for" humans. There's an inherited bias >> toward the planet as a possession of man that is flawed from the >> beginning, whose final outworking is disaster. The strongest >> cohesive example I can offer is the indians. The land didn't belong >> to them, it belonged to all. SOM inherited certain metaphysical >> presuppositions from religion and this is a biggie. > > Ron replies: > What can be asserted is that you are also making an anthropocentric appeal > only it's more broad and generalized . You argue this case for the greater > good of humanity. > > I think what you are railing against is a type of shallow anthropocentrism > Such as SOM. > >> Ron Kulp earlier: >> >>> Even when It focuses on the broader human good, one which encompasses care >>> For and observance of the environment, it is always to enrich the human >>> experience. It's job is to solve >>> Problems. Human problems. >> >> Jc: The earth's problems are the humans problems. Wiping out your >> ecological niche is a bad move all way around, and man's very being is >> bound up in the natural world - therefore man's concern ought to be >> for that whole. That. Not man apart from that. There is a >> comprehensive intellectual critique, behind my simple words, so it's >> not that intellect is evil or wrong or a bad tool. It's just when >> it's made the highest in a hierarchy or the king of the world, that it >> runs into problems. > > Ron replies: > What if this King made environmental health it's primary goal? > >> Ron: >> >> >>> Some would consider human rationality an extension of nature. >> >> >> Jc: Sure, the lorax speaks for the trees, and so do I. When we live >> in nature, we express and think about the natural analogies. When we >> live in an intellectualized virtual reality, we are in trouble. > > Ron replies: > Preaching to the choir, I don't see anyone here arguing for intellectual > Abstraction and rationalism, this is a group of empiricists. > >> Ron: >> >>> But you are talking about the locus >>> Of values, which boils down to this, >>> You interpret RMP as placing that locus on intellectual values. >> >> Jc: I'm not sure, actually. I know it's a trap I avoid, and I know >> it's a trap he fell into and then escaped and thus perhaps feels he >> can dip in and out whenever he wants. That may be true. As the >> discussion here has gone tho, Arlo's and DMB's point seems to be along >> the lines of definding intellectual-ism. > > Ron replies: > They defend intellectual quality there is a difference. > >> Ron: >> >>> But if you >>> read his work, the locus of all value is Dynamic value. >> >> Jc: I'm talking in a practical sense Ron, what way of life do I >> orient myself? If I say to people, "DQ" they scoff at me as >> anti-intellectual, even on this list which is dedicated to Pirsig's >> thought. So when the rubber hits the road, it looks like intellect is >> laughing last. > > Ron replies: > Perhaps, but what is important is the orientation of intellect, this then is > the primary realization. If intellect does have the last laugh then how it's > crafted and how it acts is of the utmost concern, no? > >> Ron: >> >>> Remember the idea that we emerge from the environment is an idea. >>> A good idea but a human idea. >>> All experience can only ever be our >>> Hu >> man experience we can "know" >>> No other. >> >> Jc: Well, I beg to differ. We can know experience of others, >> especially mammals, but with deep quiet, all of being. In fact, it is >> through knowing this diversity of otherness that we know ourselves. >> "the myriad things confirm the self" > > Ron replies: > Now I beg to differ, anyone who claims to know how a dolphin thinks or feels > is really anthropomorphisizing. One may empathize with living being extending > one's compassion to others as compassion for the self, but you begin to > rationalize when you project yourself on others and claim knowledge of their > experience. > >>> Second >>> >>> John Carl states: >>> Without the imagination of a hall filled with sound, no >>> intellectual pattern of composition can occur. Here's a big problem, >>> I have. Where's art? Where does art fit in? You can say "intellect" >>> but when you make intellect the arbiter of all reality, it tends to >>> decide for itself what is art and what is not and that is a very bad >>> idea. >>> >>> Ron: >>> That's because you still insist "Art" >>> Is separate and distinct from the human experience >> >> Jc: ???. Man, you are forgetful. No, I want to make art the apex of >> human experience and knock it down a peg to at least a partner with >> intellect but the way the MOQ was constructed, people have removed all >> discussion of artistic endeavor and it's all intellect, intellect, >> intellect. I don't think Pirsig intended this, but in choosing >> "intellect" instead of "art" as a label for the 4th level, all kinds >> of orthodox heresy has come about. I say orthodox because DMB says it >> and I say heresy because while y'all sure seem pro-intellectual, from >> my perspective you're being anti-Quality. > > Ron replies: > Because intellect IS an art. It is held in higher regard here because this is > philosophy forum that is dependent on written words and linguistic meaning. > > Why can't we have intellectual quality John? > > >>> but what you are >>> Really asking is how does beauty fit >>> In. How does RMP's explanation account for the beautiful in human experience >>> again if you read his work >>> He explains that Dynamic quality, the >>> Ineffable good the force that drives and compels is the source of beauty. >>> Now, some wise folks contend that >>> In order to see hear feel or taste beauty to apprehend it, it must have >>> Meaning. Therefore meaning, good and beauty become synonymous. >>> (Experience is composed of preferences) therefore intellect and >>> Art are synonymous ( the rendering of meaning from experience ) >>> >>> But first and foremost John you do >>> Realize that MOQ subscribes to >>> Idealism, >> >> Jc: Sure Ron, I've known that for a long time. If you remember I'd >> made something of a fuss on the issue back in the day. And since Bo >> accuses me of pushing the idea that the MoQ is idealism, at least >> three times a week, it's hard to forget. >> >> Ron: >> >> that everything we experience is derived from thoughts >>> About experience. >> >> Jc: Yes, but about that "experience" it's special in ways that go >> beyond human intellect. My hypothesis is that speciallness is >> carried, by natural rhythms and patterns. Moving so far beyond >> nature that we don't have any contact or our children have no vital >> contact, human experience is moving away from Quality. > > Ron sez: > It doesn't have to. I think there is plenty of signs that some things have > changed. > >> Ron: >> >> Almost the entirety >>> Of human experience is based on layers and layers of thoughts about >>> experience. The wise then note that >>> All of human experience, what we call nature and reality is an act of >>> creation >>> it is art! >>> >>> This, above all else, is what you fail >>> To understand about Pirsigs explanation. >> >> Jc: I agree, of course that what you say is right. I fail to find >> support for Art in the structure of the basic MoQ. Taken as a whole, >> I do find Pirsig's explanation. But where does Art fit in the 4 >> levels? Everywhere, you say. But where does human artistic >> experience fit in? Is it social? Intellectual? Biological? None >> of those seem to fit. But if the 4th were a dualism, with art being >> the leading edge, that would then make everything fit perfect. > > Ron sez: > I think that's what Bob IS saying. > >> Ron: >> >>> To say that Art is somehow degraded >>> By making it the center of a metaphysics is not to understand >>> The metaphysic. >>> >>> Remember it is you that has the problem with understanding art as intellect, >>> art as experience and art as reality. Somehow it denigrates some elitist >>> notion of art as a sacred and holy static idea to be worshiped. >>> Remember it is your own prejudice >>> You struggle with most. >> >> Jc: Well, duh. We can figure out everything but our weak spot. But >> to be clear, I think art is separate from intellect in experience, as >> in people tend to vary greatly in their artistic and intellectual >> abilities and rarely do both sides come together in one person. when >> it does, they are remarkable because of this "both". It takes two to >> make a both. Intellect can't do it alone. > > Ron: > I don't think it's as difficult as you say. > > It just takes changing one perspective. Like letting go of the notion that > they are separate. > > It's tough when you are invested so heavily in the idea. I mean when your > whole definition of your self rests on this supposed division of course > you'll rearrange and throw out everything to maintain it. > > That's why stuff [i.e. John Carl's INTELLECTUAL arguments] isn't adding up. > > > . > > 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
