Horse,
I just hear AH AH AAAH. But that's not what you think you're saying.
Perhaps you think of yourself as a bit like Bileam's ass. In any case,
if you don't give a shit about me fucking you here and now I might as
well keep going. Don't worry, Bo is surely watching even though he isn't
here. In fact, all the world is looking.
You are concerned about what I'm doing and why. The tender naivete
underlying these questions reminds me of a YouTube video I saw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azOWjmfUqVw
Worry not, for in the end of this apparent violence there will be
insemination of ideas.
This dialectical technique I am using against you is a variant of
reductio ad absurdum. Wikipedia describes the latter:
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for 'reduction to absurdity'; or
argumentum ad absurdum, 'argument to absurdity') is a form of argument
which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably
leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove
one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or
impossible."
It is ridiculous, absurd and impractical that you should allow me to
behave in this manner. However, you are unable to use Pirsig's MOQ to
identify the reason for why this behavior is wrong.
I personally know my behavior is wrong because it is not aesthetical.
This is not nice. This is the opposite of courtesy. But it is in
accordance with intellect dominating sociality, so Pirsig says I should
do this.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
At this point I propose, so to say, that you change the game. Adopt the
theory of artistic quality as an alternative to Pirsig's materialistic
and empiricistic theory of static quality. The lowest level of artistic
quality is the prescription level, which contains rules such as: "If you
ask someone a question it's impolite to ask the same question again
before the other has had time to answer".
If you had believed prescriptions exist as metaphysical entities you
could have made a metaphysical argument according to which my behavior
is inappropriate. But if you do that now, your metaphysics says you're
just pussies sick of being pounded. Even if you are, just wait a bit.
Something begins to grow inside you and you will most likely feel a
compulsion to nurture it.
Of prescriptions emerge cultures. Cultures are Wittgenstenian language
games, in a way, but they are real-life games involving body language
and facial expression, and not just abstract manipulation of symbols
that are inherently meaningless - that have been sterilized from
ambiguity. In art, ambiguity is a good thing. It can be achieved even in
text, obviously, since literature is also an art. And what would be
better literature than this?
Of cultures emerges freedom. Freedom patterns are those that are
designed to encourage people to defy cultural prescriptions when it is
better to do so. The Diamond Sutra is a freedom pattern. And, at the
time of its discovery in the orient, such freedom was probably
inherently aesthetical.
However, technically the aesthetical level emerges from the freedom
level. Aesthetics means that which we choose to do after we have become
free to do anything. Free from carnal desire. Free from jealousy. Free
from hunger and thirst and cold and heat. Perhaps willing to play with
all of them.
Aesthetics refers to what we choose to remember after all those years.
After you have the theory of artistic quality you can use it to argue
that my behavior is not aesthetical. I could argue so, too. But on the
other hand I could argue that since I'm behaving in an unaesthetical
manner to introduce the notions of "aesthetical" and "unaesthetical" to
other people, I am innocent, and my activity is consequently aesthetical.
It is aesthetical because, in a sense, you have been bragging all the
time you have ignored the existence of aesthetics. You have behaved like
know-it-alls. So you brought this upon yourselves. I don't know about
you but I don't think karma travels along rail roads and ski tracks. I
think karma travels along the rules of aesthetics.
You can say the safeword if you want to, but "I don't give a shit" isn't
exactly the safeword, and wouldn't you like to know where all this leads to?
Tuk
On 03-Jan-17 21:08, Horse wrote:
What are you on about? Are you a complete idiot or do you take the
occasional day off?
And if you want to carry on fucking with me then please go away and do
it where someone gives a shit!
On 03/01/2017 14:40, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
Horse,
okay, but I achieved the same effect by asking you permission to do
so! You see, I'm just copulating with ya.
Tuk
On 03-Jan-17 16:19, Horse wrote:
No
On 03/01/2017 10:08, m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net wrote:
Horse,
GET BACK IN HERE AND TELL ME CAN I CALL RON A "DICKWAD" OR NOT
It is funny because it's true. Wait, what is?
It's true that by behaving this way I am actually acknowledging
that intellectual patterns depend on social patterns. They need
social patterns to survive. So I try to verify that my behavior is
in accordance with social norms.
AND I'M STILL DOING IT WRONG
But you don't have a category for the reason why it's wrong. I do,
and you refuse it because I have made it a humiliating thing to
accept. But your metaphysics doesn't explain this humiliating
feeling. It says you should thank me. Why don't you want to do so?
Why don't you want to thank me for dominating sociality with
intellect while verifying that my behavior isn't socially
inappropriate?
Tuk
Lainaus m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net:
Horse,
Can we change the mailing list rules? I need to call Ron a
"dickwad" as
a part of a dialectical technique that seems rhetorical to him
because
he doesn't understand it.
Tuk
Lainaus Tuukka Virtaperko <m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net>:
Ron,
and why am I asking you this question that sounds so offensive?
"What is so good about society that you would defend it against me?"
I agree that sounds pretty selfish. But what's *wrong* about it
according to the MOQ? The MOQ doesn't state it's wrong to be
selfish.
It states that intellect is superior to society.
The point I am making here is a parody of what you believe in. It is
also a literally accurate implementation of your beliefs, if you
believe in Pirsig's MOQ, but it is so grotesque it is polite to
call it
a parody.
See, I was being polite to you. But I don't sound polite anymore
because I made a fuss of it.
My current behavior lacks aesthetic appeal. You are capable of
intuitively perceiving this. But since you believe in Pirsig's
MOQ you
are compelled to search for an explanation for your intuition
from the
four boxes Pirsig gave to you. These are labeled "inorganic",
"biological", "social" and "intellectual".
You just sought for an explanation for your intuition from the box
labeled "social". According to Pirsig's MOQ this was the wrong
thing to
do. Intellect is superior to society so you can't find anything from
that box that you could use to point out that there's something
wrong
about my behavior.
From your viewpoint, your intuition of the repugnancy of my
behavior is
Dynamic Quality! But if you keep experiencing it over and over
again it
will cease to appear to be so Dynamic. So it should become
static. But
if you believe in Pirsig's MOQ, this means your intuition should
eventually settle down in one of the four boxes provided by Robert
Pirsig.
And I'm going to keep doing this until you:
- Assign my repugnant behavior to a category provided by Pirsig and
explain the assignment
or:
- Assume that you need more categories (which I have provided)
so, which one is it going to be?
Tuk
On 02-Jan-17 14:06, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
Ron,
what is so good about society that you would defend it against me?
Tuk
On 02-Jan-17 13:32, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
Ron,
If someone can devote time and effort for researching the
purported topic of this mailing list, it is regarded by
someone else as a bad thing. That someone else is put off by
himself having a job which precludes him from participating
except in a mediocre way. However, Phaedrus's aim in ZAMM was
not to define or discover or understand mediocrity. It was to
understand excellence.
Tuk
On 02-Jan-17 13:22, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
Please consider what it does to a person not to have a
credible intellectual authority as a child. You are implying
that I have caused this burden to fall upon me. But I have not
caused the ineptitude of others.
When you are sick to death of my narcissism, you are sick to
death of how insignificant it makes you feel. You think you
are entitled to feel better. I think I am also entitled to
feel better. But we don't, do we?
Is the psychiatrist who put me on pension making a useful
contribution to society? If not, why should I?
Tuk
On 01-Jan-17 18:01, X Acto wrote:
Tuk,
I guess everyone is being nice to you or ignoring you
because you're a "man-child" with out a job or purpose who
lives in his parents basement mentally masturbating to what
he thinks is his own genius. When in fact he is basing his
entire argument on a logical fallacy.
You may be a genius when it comes to logical functions but
when it comes to critical thinking skills you can't reason
yourself out of a wet paper bag.
Things aren't quiet because you are right and no one can
stand up to your towering intellect . It's that you're so
wrong no one has the time or energy to prove it to you and
your immense ego.
Since I have made a New Years resolution not to get involved
in discussions here that I can't devote my full attention
to, this tirade is basically cathartic. I'm sick to death
of your narcissism.
Grow up, get a job and make yourself useful to society And
have a great new year in the process.
-Ron
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 1, 2017, at 8:53 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
The brain is not a muscle, Dave. If you're wrong, that's it.
Tuk
On 01-Jan-17 2:33, david wrote:
Howdy, Adrie, MOQers all:
I don't know about Chris Langan's CTMU but Tuukka's
criticism is not correct.
The MOQ does not include anything like Kant's noumenal
reality or "things-in-themselves" and the MOQ holds that
phenomenal reality is the only
reality we can know. The phenomenal reality is NOT
romantic quality. When Pirsig refers to Dynamic Quality
as "direct everyday experience," "the primary empirical
reality," or quotes William James referring to "the
immediate flux of reality," and "pure experience" he is
talking about phenomenal reality as such.
Tuukka's claims to have improved the MOQ are quite
preposterous. Obviously, there's no way to "improve" the
MOQ or create an alternative without understanding it first.
Buyer beware.
________________________________
From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org>
on behalf of Adrie Kintziger <parser...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 6:43 AM
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Rhetoric
I think its good to read these materials.But things on
wiki's are not
always what they seem.Some are very deceptive.
In fact, what this author is presenting here is actually
nothing more than a
collection of derivatives from Wittgensteins work on
logic.It is spiced and
salted with some previously known paradoxes in a new disguise.
The best way of putting it ,in my opinion,is to regard it
as a new attempt
to launch the Tractatus-logico etc,....explained with the
terminology of a
computerprogrammer, or a very strong logical thinker.And
a very intelligent
thinker,...clearly,this however does not prove him right in
any way or
field.
I don't think it will generate clarifications on reality
itself,or add new
insights;
it is kinda developed to work as an upide down
gearbox,not shifting up, but
in fact , shifting down further, in a halted car.
I wished you would not take this as critisism, because it
is'nt.You should
explore these things, they are less boring than
Wittgenstein,and he was not
all that clever also.
the only part of critics i have is about your statement,
"competitor to the
moq and amoq", There is no competion,connection,or game to
win.
2016-12-31 8:52 GMT+01:00 Tuukka Virtaperko
<m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net>:
Chris Langan, developer of the CTMU, which is a
competitor to the MOQ and
AMOQ, does not understand the MOQ.
Citing
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_t
he_Universe
***
On the other hand, mind acts as a filter: that which does
not conform to
mental categories is irrelevant to perception, and
therefore not real.
Langan here breaks with Kant, who posited a noumenal
reality of
"things-in-themselves", independent of the phenomenal
reality we perceive.
Discarding this "Kantian fallacy", Langan rejects noumena
as oxymoronic
"inconceivable concepts"[21] and holds that phenomenal
reality, as the only
reality we can know, is the only reality there is.
***
This means Langan's understanding of philosophy is at
the level of ZAMM.
It is not at the level of LILA. The phenomenal reality
is romantic quality.
Langan is oblivious to Dynamic Quality.
Tuk
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac &
Android<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
www.avast.com
Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the
market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware
protection for your PC, Mac and Android.
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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
moq.org
The MOQ_Discuss mailing list has been moved to a new
hosting company and a new mailing list server. The old
system was becoming more unreliable by the day and the ...
--
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
MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
moq.org
The MOQ_Discuss mailing list has been moved to a new
hosting company and a new mailing list server. The old
system was becoming more unreliable by the day and the ...
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
