disregard!
2016-11-21 10:20 GMT+01:00 Adrie Kintziger <[email protected]>: > xe,partnumber=33950-SWA-h11(l)LEFT > or,33900-SWA-h11(r) right > other,sl-957-2 (r), sl-957-LH(left) > 33950-sww-e10 m1, or 33900-sww-e010 m1, or, K2-lf-crv10 OEM-h2 > > > 2016-11-21 1:34 GMT+01:00 <[email protected]>: > >> dmb, >> >> wow, considering all the crap that has been posted here lately, this one >> really stands out. This one actually qualifies as an opinion. Something I'm >> willing to discuss. >> >> >> Lainaus david <[email protected]>: >> >> Hello, MOQers: >>> >>> I suppose everyone knows that people are suspicious of the emotional >>> language in "rhetoric" and consider "sophistry" to be a form of >>> manipulative deception. The conventional meaning isn't likely to change >>> anytime soon and that's fine because there is empty speech and there are >>> plenty of manipulative deceivers that deserve the name. In telling the >>> story of philosophy Pirsig turns those meanings upside down. >>> >>> >>> "Plato's hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle >>> in which the reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the >>> reality of the True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in a >>> huge struggle for the future mind of man." -- Robert Pirsig >>> >>> >>> As the story is usually told, rhetoric is too emotional to be >>> considered serious about the truth. Our feelings have no bearing on the >>> truth, this story goes, and clear thinking is about cool logic and putting >>> one's passions aside. But, Pirsig says, this story doesn't make as much >>> sense as it used to. >>> >>> >>> "It's been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the >>> passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an >>> understanding of nature's order which was as yet unknown. Now it's time to >>> further an understanding of nature's order by reassimilating those >>> passions which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the >>> affective domain of man's consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. >>> The central part." -- Robert Pirsig >>> >>> >> >> Tuukka: >> >> If you're calling me unnatural, I agree. I trek and am familiar with >> nature, I feel it. But there are degrees of separation from nature. >> Consider the guy who designs the electronics inside your cell phone. He's >> pretty far detached from nature. But then again, consider an African with a >> cell phone. He possibly owns very few electronic devices. But many Africans >> do have a cell phone. I think the African with the cell phone is less >> detached from nature than the guys (and girls) who designed the electronics >> and coded the software inside. >> >> So, these nerds (Hell if Adrie doesn't accuse me of being a nerd. I could >> call him a flibbertigibbet but that would go nowhere.) change nature. They >> could some day create nature on different planet. I know, that doesn't >> interest anyone here, clearly. But they could still do it. >> >> The point is, technology can help us express our nature. And if >> technology gets good enough we will have more time to cultivate the >> delightful aspects of what does it mean to be a biological organism. Which >> is what you want. But you don't want to be part of the process if that >> requires you to change your thinking. You only want the result. And do you >> know why that makes me feel bad? >> >> It makes me feel bad because I have to do this because of who I am. I >> don't have enough social skills. If I try to do that "emotional >> intelligence" thing people do at my posts, which apparently means throwing >> poop at them like monkeys or staring at them like ducks, I end up doing >> something else than maximizing my potential. >> >> But the paradox in me maximizing my potential is in me doing things that >> don't make me happy. That don't mean living a full life. So, I'm always >> balancing between "you're going to break yourself that way" and "now you're >> just trying to drown the pain you feel all the time". >> >> The break myself part means that I don't eat, I don't have a social life, >> I get so serious and competitive I start feeling intimidated by people with >> good social skills... because I'm so serious I don't feel like I'm going to >> enlighten people like some guy in a robe. I feel like I'm going to KILL the >> ignorance in them like some guy driving a tank. So, obviously my natural >> instinct becomes to suspect that the emotionally intelligent people share >> this mindset even though they're just getting good vibes from helping >> people. I feel like they're punishing me for who I am because I can't >> behave up to their standards. >> >> But sometimes I get so sick of that. I'm really not inhumane enough. >> Because that serious and competitive attitude does make me sick. So then I >> try to feel. Live a life of feelings. And it's difficult because usually I >> really don't care. If I love someone, then I care. Otherwise I really don't >> care. I'm not sure what "universal love" means or whether it's attainable >> for me. Sometimes temporarily it may be. >> >> And you think I live this way because I think it's a good way to live a >> life. No, I don't think anybody should live like this unless they're good >> at what they do. If you do this but you're never going to be good at it, >> well, unless somebody pays you to do it anyway, or unless you do it just >> for fun, stop doing it. That's my advice to anyone. >> >> You don't need to teach me I'm hurting myself by living this kind of a >> life. I know it already. I'm not imposing a lifestyle on you! I'm only >> imposing the results of my pain-in-the-ass research on you. I could do >> something else. A lot of people would want me to draw cartoons. But nobody >> has ever told me a coherent acount of why I couldn't be extremely good at >> this. I think I'm better at this than anyone I know. Yup, another proof >> that I have no social skills. A suave person might have thought that of >> himself but wouldn't have said it. >> >> >> >>> At certain points in the re-telling and inversion of this old >>> slanderous story Pirsig is downright angry about it. He finally realizes >>> that the Platonic demand for passionless dialectic has the effect of >>> excluding Quality, which is the whole thing for Pirsig. >>> >>> >> >> Tuukka: >> It did before Gödel's incompeleteness theories. But after them it became >> baloney that the Platonic demand for passionless dialectic would >> necessarily exclude Quality. The theorems, although dialectical by nature, >> had the rhetorical side-effect of proving the existence of Quality. The >> formal systems with the most Quality are more widely used (except by people >> like me who develop alternative analytic systems they suppose to have >> Quality in the future). >> >> >> >>> >>> "Phædrus' mind races on and on and then on further, seeing now at last a >>> kind of evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched in himself, which pretends to >>> try and understand love and beauty and truth and wisdom but whose real >>> purpose is never to understand them, whose real purpose is always to usurp >>> them and enthrone itself. Dialectic - the usurper. That is what he sees. >>> The parvenu, muscling in on all that is Good and seeking to contain it and >>> control it." >>> >>> >> >> Tuukka: >> >> What'cha gonna do if you don't got the emotional intelligence for being >> one of the cool guys? Of course the cool guys know Quality. Most of them >> knew all about it after they became rock stars. And the nerds will be >> forever bitter for not becoming one of the rock stars. >> >> Of course it goes both ways. Finnish reporter Seppo Heikinheimo committed >> suicide after sending his memoirs to a publisher. They were titled "The >> Memoirs of a 'Mätämuna'". It's hard to translate "Mätämuna". Literally, it >> means a rotten egg, but since the Finnish word "muna" can mean both "egg" >> and "testicle", also darker interpretations are possible. In any case >> Heikinheimo used this word of himself because he didn't understand >> mathematics. My high school maths teacher told this story. He'd read all >> about it from the memoirs. He always spoke of Heikinheimo in an >> appreciating tone. >> >> And why would someone want to control something? Generally? Well, because >> if he doesn't control it it could hurt him! Who wouldn't like to know more >> people they can trust... >> >> >> >>> And he's feeling triumphant about this discovery because it turns out >>> that the Sophists weren't demagogues, hucksters, or confidence men. They >>> were teaching Quality and they were teaching it the same way he had been >>> teaching it to his student in Montana. >>> >>> >>> "Lightning hits! Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were >>> teaching! Not ethical relativism. Not pristine 'virtue.' But areté. >>> Excellence. Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before >>> form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been >>> absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, >>> and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric." >>> >>> >> >> Tuukka: >> Yeah, I've occasionally been one of the cool guys, too. Still am. But I >> don't know much about what to do with that. It looks like I probably should >> be one of the guys who makes things for people who actually need them >> because they have a life. If you were one of those laborers, would you >> never feel envious? Maybe, if you wouldn't know how good the living feel. >> But they can feel really good. And once you know that, you realize you're >> on a space mission because even though you can understand what these >> emotionally intelligent people have accomplished in life, you realize >> that's not what your life is gonna be. And you search and search for a way >> to change that, but you can't find any. And if you just keep searching too >> long you start feeling like: "Now I'm not going to even achieve that nerdy >> shit I could've made work had I just given up about life soon enough!" >> >> >> >>> And this re-telling of ancient history is part of the book's central >>> project, which is a root expansion of rationality. The criticisms of >>> rationality that he offers almost always involve the problem of objective >>> truth. Value-free science has got to go, he says. Attitudes of objectivity >>> make our thinking stiff and narrow and entail a denigration of >>> subjectivity so that Quality is JUST what you like, is JUST your opinion >>> or assessment of some thing or other. But this is part of that same old >>> slander against the Sophists and rhetoricians, Pirsig says, and our form >>> of rationality would actually be vastly improved by putting Quality at the >>> cutting edge of all experience and all thought. Quality is right there at >>> the very roots of our thinking and by including Quality our thinking is >>> broadened and deepened and enriched by the inclusion of the emotional and >>> aesthetic quality that pervades our thought regardless of whether we >>> acknowledge it or not. You gotta have a feel for the work, he says, and >>> that's not just about fixing motorcycles. It's about everything. All the >>> time. >>> >>> >> >> Tuukka: >> Yeah, well, where did I get all these ideas? Quality. I actually followed >> Pirsig's advice. I've never completed a course in the University although I >> passed the entrance exam. Anonymous professionals and experts trained me >> for free. The rest I made on my own. And I chose what to do according to >> whether it's a Quality choice. >> >> >> >>> For Pirsig, "rhetoric" simply means excellence in thought and speech. >>> Rhetoric is truer than objective truth because it includes the heart as >>> well the head, so to speak. To talk truthfully will mean that the claim is >>> supported by evidence and its expression logically sound, just as before, >>> but that's no longer good enough. Speaking truthfully also means that you >>> care about the truth, have feelings about that truth and maybe your >>> expression shows the power or the beauty of that truth. To move or >>> persuade another is not a sinister manipulation or a deception. It's a >>> good thing and we should love it somebody does it right. >>> >>> >> >> Tuukka: >> Rhetoric truth and objective truth - I wouldn't compare their >> truthfulness. There are hucksters and cheaters. They got the rhetoric but >> they don't give the objective truth. Rhetorical truth isn't categorically >> better or worse than objective truth. >> >> >> Thanks for saving my day anyway, >> Tuk >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > parser > -- parser 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
