Re: [MD] O Captain, My captain
I think this 2010 interview says a lot. http://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/sep/20/robin-williams-worlds-greatest-dad-alcohol-drugs Sad. Ian On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: When I read that Robin William died I couldn't quite believe it was THAT Robin Williams. I suppose artistry and madness really do go hand in hand at times, which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Gotta push through it... can't let it take you down... On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: In order to keep the Good, Beauty and Love as Forms, I can certainly understand why Plato thought that he needed to ban poets from his Republic. Robin Williams explained this point eloquently in this clip from The Dead Poet's Society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq_XBP3NrBo RIP sweet Captain. . 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 -- http://www.danglover.com 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
Re: [MD] Injury and illness.
Wow, thanks for highlighting that Dan DMB, passed me by. How dreadful - thoughts with JC and family. Ian On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:43 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Dan said: For those who haven't heard, our friend John suffered a fall while trimming trees. He broke both wrists as well as his neck and what sounds even more dire, when they did the scans on his head they discovered a brain tumor. From what I understand he is doing as well as can be expected under the circumstances and hopefully (at least for me) we'll see him back here soon. dmb says: What a nightmare! Hell of a way to find out about a brain tumor. Very bad luck. Sorry to hear it. 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
Re: [MD] A message for John Carl
Hi John, Agreed, there is little intelligent criticism, and much virulent vitriol on MD. In fact I was tempted to respond to this from Arlo ...As I tell students I work with, the simplest progression is A said B. A was wrong about B. This is why A was wrong about B. I propose C instead of B. Here's why C is better. Each step in this progression is subject to examination for accuracy, and you can't conflate criticism with one step as criticism for another (or all). That this is the problem. It's all criticism, the cart before the horse. Nothing before the disagreement. Whereas, these are the rhetorical habits we should really aspire to: QUOTE This excerpt from neurologist-philosopher Daniel Dennett's new book Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking lays out a set of rhetorical habits that I immediately aspired to attain: How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way. 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. And if that wasn't enough: whenever you see a rhetorical question, try – silently, to yourself – to give it an unobvious answer. If you find a good one, surprise your interlocutor by answering the question. And then, A good moral to draw from this observation is that when you want to criticise a field, a genre, a discipline, an art form …don't waste your time and ours hooting at the crap! Go after the good stuff or leave it alone. UNQUOTE Criticism is to be used very, very, very, very sparingly, and only after 1, 2 and 3 are established in the conversation. Regards Ian 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
Re: [MD] A message for John Carl
arlo, one - that was a process describing critcism very explcitly, indeed recommending it as sound teaching for the novice. two - sure I broke my own (aspirational) rule. so what should you read into that rhetorical choice. more ad-hominen things about ian or . ian On 16 Jul 2014 14:54, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] In fact I was tempted to respond to this from Arlo ...As I tell students I work with, the simplest progression is A said B. A was wrong about B. This is why A was wrong about B. I propose C instead of B. Here's why C is better. Each step in this progression is subject to examination for accuracy, and you can't conflate criticism with one step as criticism for another (or all). That this is the problem. It's all criticism, the cart before the horse. Nothing before the disagreement. [Arlo] Except, what I wrote is not criticism by any stretch of that word. It's a simple presentation of a process. Could I have been more elaborate? Perhaps. But I guess I am used to working with people who wouldn't need this process elaborated upon. Apparently, I was wrong. (Yes, you can count THAT as criticism.) I am tempted to point out that your reply to this, however, was all criticism. And you didn't follow your Dennett-steps yourself. [Ian] Criticism is to be used very, very, very, very sparingly, and only after 1, 2 and 3 are established in the conversation. [Arlo] Do as I say, not as I do, eh? (Count that as a bonus criticism.) 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
[MD] The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Not sure if people noticed a recent (few weeks ago) edition of In Our Time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043xpkd Leads eventually to the romanticisation of orientalism picked-up by 50's/60's popular culture. (And we recall it was one of two books Pirsig had with him in is saddlebag.) Ian 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
Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited
So, we're about where we were when Bo left us. There's something wrong with intellect as she is currently construed - but we can't quite put our finger on it. Despite that we're all trying very hard to solve the problem, because - interpersonal behavioural issues aside - we all sincerely believe intellect scores over (mere) feeling. Carry on girls. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Arlo
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:10 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] Clearly short-hand naming of groups can be misused... [Arlo] Clearly. [IG] Ha - irony bypass there. [Ian] ... different people have different propensities to mental styles that use the different halves. [Arlo] No. The research says exactly otherwise. [IG] Evidence - ready when you are. [Arlo] The research says specifically that 'mental styles' ARE NOT lateralized. I understand this will take some time before pop-psychologists and self-help gurus are able to accept the research, but its embarrassing to see this repeated here over and over. [IG] As you say - it's embarassing to to see this out-of- fashionable crap repeated. Just gain-saying is not evidence or argument Arlo, and you know it. You seem to have missed a whole cycle of evidence and thought Arlo. As several of the references have said it became poisonous for sometime to talk in left/right terms because so much pop-crap was indeed based on it. But knowledge moves on. The neuro-physiological mechanisms - that enable (and more accurately inhibit in a controlled way) - the talk between the two halves are increasingly understood. Neither side has a monopoly on what's modelled. but the processed that depend on both halves are affected by how the two halves interact. Please address some of the sources provided. Haidt, McGilchrist, Kahneman, etc ... ... rather than branding them with ad-hominem attacks based on straw-men. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited
How does that - feeling informs intellect - in any way conflict with what I said? Ian On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote: Ian, Very much the opposite (as always) Feeling informs intellect, but that Doesn't give bullshit authority over reason. Carry on you big strapping fella. Ron On Jun 5, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: So, we're about where we were when Bo left us. There's something wrong with intellect as she is currently construed - but we can't quite put our finger on it. Despite that we're all trying very hard to solve the problem, because - interpersonal behavioural issues aside - we all sincerely believe intellect scores over (mere) feeling. Carry on girls. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Arlo
That's a politically correct cop-out John. Differentiation is everything of significance, by definition. Clearly short-hand naming of groups can be misused, but we all have brains in two halves. The two halves work in different complementary ways, and different people have different propensities to mental styles that use the different halves. But as we said, the brain (and neurophysiological system generally) is plastic, differences are dynamic, and we can all learn to compensate and use both halves appropriately. Quality is appreciating and acting on that knowledge. Ian On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Ian, But maybe Arlo is right. Maybe if we'd just drop the divisive terminology, we wouldn't have all the conflicts we have. So let's ignore, male-brain/female-brain or day/night or yes/no and call it all Quality! Down with differentiation! Quality is all! Quality, Quality. On 5/30/14, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Thought so ... in here JC says bio-reductionism is seeing higher patterns as caused (dictated) by the lower. I don't see things that way. Me too. But lower patterns do support and static-latch higher patterns in true Pirsigian style. Bio supports socio-intellectual. (Just DMB being the straw-man creator as usual, in order to impugn individuals.) Arlo, you are misguided if you think that one article says left / right brainedness is just a figure of speech. The most publicised recent work comes from Iain McGilchrist Master and Emmisary. Linked many times on MD. None of these things are determisitic, the physical brain is very plastic too (as JC's personal story illustrates, but there's plenty out there too). Even male / female brain traits incidentally - not deterministic, but real and relevant. Ian 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 -- finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries. 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
Re: [MD] Minding half of your brain?
I doubt John claimed belief that Pirsig's classical and romantic modes of thinking are neurological determined. More like neurologically supported, predictable, consistent, consilient, few things are determined in this world. It is far from nonsense to to bring cross-discipline material into the discussion. In fact that's the very point of IAI (your link DMB). I was at the IAI How The Light Gets In Festival last weekend and earlier this week at Hay on Wye, and most sessions involved combinations of philosopher, psychologist, neurophysiologist, physicist, cosmologist and political activist, to name a few. I like Hacker, a good Wittgensteinian, but he protests too much at how much of brain and consciousness is unexplained and therefore excluded from contributions to the dialogue - blogged much about his debates with Dennett on this topic - Hacker's (wilful) ignorance of neurophysiology is no defence. Several good sessions at Hay with McGilchrist (much promoted by IAI and linked many times previously on MD) and Penrose. Only rough notes from Hay blogged so far, but hoping to edit some articles by the weekend. MD needs to let some light in to coin a phrase. Ian On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:51 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Arlo said to John: ...You're making a very specific claim, in order to reduce Pirsig's problematic classical/romantic schism to one that is determined by neurophysiology. I'm saying, the current research does not support that at all.What's critical here is that you're not making the claim to support a neurological position, you're coopting a popularly held neurological belief in order to support a metaphysical distinction. If you were interested in neurology, I suppose, you'd find better discussion on a neurology board, or you'd be going through the current research yourself to see what's going on in the field. But what you seem to be interested in is finding neurological theories, no matter how they are being reshaped by current studies, that support your belief that Pirsig's classical and romantic modes of thinking are neurological determined. dmb says: Right. It seems to be a half-baked version of the brain-mind identity theory, which, ironically, is pretty thoughtless. http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/why-study-philosophy-auid-289 The only way to scrutinise concepts is to examine the use of the words that express them. Conceptual investigations are investigations into what makes sense and what does not. And, of course, questions of sense precede questions of empirical truth – for if something makes no sense, it can be neither true nor false. It is just nonsense – not silly, but rather: it transgresses the bounds of sense. Philosophy patrols the borders between sense and nonsense; science determines what is empirically true and what is empirically false. What falsehood is for science, nonsense is for philosophy. Let me give you a simple example or two. When psychologists and cognitive scientists say that it is your brain that thinks rather than nodding your head and saying, “How interesting! What an important discovery!”, you should pause to wonder what this means. What, you might then ask, is a thoughtful brain, and what is a thoughtless one? Can my brain concentrate on what I am doing, or does it just concentrate on what it is doing? Does my brain hold political opinions? Is it, as Gilbert and Sullivan might ask, a little Conservative or a little Liberal? Can it be opinionated? Narrow-minded? What on earth would an opinionated and narrow-minded brain be? Just ask yourself: if it is your brain that thinks, how does your brain tell you what it thinks? And can you disagree with it? And if you do, how do you tell it that it is mistaken, that what it thinks is false? And can your brain understand what you say to it? Can it speak English? If you continue this line of questioning you will come to realise that the very idea that the brain thinks makes no sense. But, of course, to show why it makes no sense requires a great deal more work. 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
Re: [MD] Why study philosophy?
healthy scepticism is indeed a requirement of any worthwhile discourse. But of course it's neither the point, nor the whole of such discourse. Having cultivated a healthy scepticism, the point is constructive creativity towards new meaningful hypotheses. It's crude scientism to think the way to arrive at truth is falsification and critical thinking, that's simply a way to test potential truths. The easy bit. Ian On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:24 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: The study of philosophy cultivates a healthy scepticism about the moral opinions, political arguments and economic reasonings with which we are daily bombarded by ideologues, churchmen, politicians and economists. It teaches one to detect ‘higher forms of nonsense’, to identify humbug, to weed out hypocrisy, and to spot invalid reasoning. It curbs our taste for nonsense, and gives us a nose for it instead. It teaches us not to rush to affirm or deny assertions, but to raise questions about them. Even more importantly, it teaches us to raise questions about questions, to probe for their tacit assumptions and presuppositions, and to challenge these when warranted. In this way it gives us a distance from passion-provoking issues – a degree of detachment that is conducive to reason and reasonableness. http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/why-study-philosophy-auid-289 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
Re: [MD] Arlo
Thought so ... in here JC says bio-reductionism is seeing higher patterns as caused (dictated) by the lower. I don't see things that way. Me too. But lower patterns do support and static-latch higher patterns in true Pirsigian style. Bio supports socio-intellectual. (Just DMB being the straw-man creator as usual, in order to impugn individuals.) Arlo, you are misguided if you think that one article says left / right brainedness is just a figure of speech. The most publicised recent work comes from Iain McGilchrist Master and Emmisary. Linked many times on MD. None of these things are determisitic, the physical brain is very plastic too (as JC's personal story illustrates, but there's plenty out there too). Even male / female brain traits incidentally - not deterministic, but real and relevant. Ian 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
[MD] Alan Watts ?
Hi folks, Spurred by two entirely coincidental references to Alan Watts turning up in the last couple of days. (Donovan bio-doc and the Beats / San Fran / City Lights / Maharishi / Beatles / Mike Love connections and some recent Alan Watts quotes by Brain Pickings ) I was checking out Alan Watts and it occurred to me I'd not heard him mentioned in our Pirsig context. Pirsig mentions being impressed by the early beats before the hippies lost their way, and before the ZMM trip - I know he's referenced On The Road and Howl. But Watts The Way of Zen (1959) was de-rigeur reading for the beats migrating from NYC to San Fran. And during the 1968 ZMM trip Watts was still living on his houseboat in SanFran when Pirsig visited the Zen Centre there after he'd put Chris on a train home. (Watts died in 1973 before ZMM was published.) Anyone know of any Pirsig / Watts connections ? Ian 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
Re: [MD] Alan Watts ?
Comforting to hear you've already made the connection. If your memoir is commercially available post a link. Otherwise forward anything you want Bob to see, with any letter of introduction. Regards Ian On 29 May 2014 16:58, Michael R. Brown m...@fuguewriter.com wrote: Watts is a wonder. One of the loveliest stylists - something extremely *comforting* about him. He ministers. His The Way of Zen is beyond fantastic. And I have a copy of his Cloud Hidden, Whereabouts Unknown on my bedside table. I worked Watts' presence around the inception and the aftermath of the climax of my '09 memoir She and I: A Fugue, which ends on the tribute to Pirsig - after I drive past the Zen monastery where Chris' ashes are (and me looking out on the Golden Gate he and Chris would have ridden across after the end of ZAMM). If anyone's interested, I can post the passages ... I do need to get a copy to RMP - can anyone tell me how? MRB On 5/29/2014 9:10 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: Hi folks, Spurred by two entirely coincidental references to Alan Watts turning up in the last couple of days. (Donovan bio-doc and the Beats / San Fran / City Lights / Maharishi / Beatles / Mike Love connections and some recent Alan Watts quotes by Brain Pickings ) I was checking out Alan Watts and it occurred to me I'd not heard him mentioned in our Pirsig context. Pirsig mentions being impressed by the early beats before the hippies lost their way, and before the ZMM trip - I know he's referenced On The Road and Howl. But Watts The Way of Zen (1959) was de-rigeur reading for the beats migrating from NYC to San Fran. And during the 1968 ZMM trip Watts was still living on his houseboat in SanFran when Pirsig visited the Zen Centre there after he'd put Chris on a train home. (Watts died in 1973 before ZMM was published.) Anyone know of any Pirsig / Watts connections ? Ian 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
Re: [MD] John Carl
Phew! On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: John, I for one am glad they didn't run you off. I enjoy our discussions even if we don't agree. I think it's good to examine these differences of opinion and helps to build a more solid foundation for the MOQ. Thanks, Dan http://www.danglover.com On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:59 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the moderation, Horse. Personally, I'll be more careful. John On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote: Hi All Just a quick note to say that no-one is being removed from MD for having an opinion that is not part of the mainstream of thought on this list. I also think folks need to lighten up a bit and be slightly less tense when partaking of a conversation. Remember that we're here to discuss RMP's work and as part of that endeavour we should try and emulate the manner in which he created it which, I believe, was in the spirit of good will and tolerance. Anyone who was at the 2005 conference will remember what Pirsig said about the idea of fairness - I think that this underlined how he would like to see discussions relating to the MOQ proceeding. Could anyone present in 2005 really imagine Bob ripping one of the speakers a new one if they'd have said something a bit controversial - cos I can't! Try to keep your blood pressure down and your heart rate low and steady - skin up a fat one if you like and take a few deep drags before replying. Horse On 19/05/2014 19:32, T-REXX Techs wrote: Hmmm. Let's see now. With whom can I hope to have fraternal dialogue? On the one hand we have John Carl in a thoughtful discourse with Dan: Let me put it a slightly different way, Dan. remember when the art teacher was so impressed by Phaedrus's sculpture? And yet Phdrs didn't see why? Dan: Absolutely. Phaedrus didn't understand DeWeese. They were on different wave lengths. One was a rationalist and the other an artist. Jc: And yet they were friends. That is, there wasn't any antipathy or competition driving their relationship, but an interest in each other's different way of thinking. I find it telling that the artist seemed to get the intellectual more than the intellectual got the artist. At least in this story. John: The classic seems dynamic to the romantic, and vice versa. But ultimately, the realest thing we can be sure of, is an aesthetic good - something that feels right. It has to be logical, of course. Anything illogical is bad thinking, but logic is like the law - a schoolmaster, and does not itself own the goal of it's own technique. Dan: Well, in that same section of ZMM, DeWeese asks Phaedrus to look at a light switch in his studio that's not working. He says how DeWeese has the look of an art patron asking the artist a question about a painting he doesn't understand. Jc: DeWeese didn't understand electricity but that wasn't the bone of contention in this episode - it was whether or not intuition can guide one in seeking solutions. Phaedrus intuitively knew that the problem was in the switch because he had some technical information about the way electricity works, that DeWeese did not. This was frustrating to an artist who prides himself on listening to his intuition alone. He contrasts DeWeese with the Sutherlands in that he is not anti-technology at all... he is simply so far removed from it he doesn't understand it. But he is always willing to learn more. DeWeese becomes frustrated when he doesn't understand how Phaedrus knew it was the switch, especially when told it was obvious. In hat sense, DeWeese is neither a classic personality or a romantic. He is beyond that. He is an artist. We then have John Carl, justifiably indignant when abusively provoked: When you say about, do you mean parrotting? Because that's something weird I've encountered with both you and dmb, that you think the MoQ is to be memorized and staticized whereas I believe that metaphysics of Quality implies potential for continuuing betterness. That is, the question of what is good and not, can be asked ad inifitum about anything and everything, including the MoQ itself. It's a process, not a thing. You guys seem to want to carve it in stone and cause it to be worshipped. That's the problem with humanity, they try and make a religion out of everything. Well not the MoQ, fuck you very much. This is sacred ground and not to be contained in your shelves and definitions, white man. Then John wrote an apology letter to Robert Pirsig: Dear Bob, I apologize for the abject state of your only academical representation in the world today. Unfortunately you were right all along and no person of Quality would want to have anything to do with that instrument of asshole-ery - the academy. I feel somewhat to blame because I really felt early on that if I'd just cared enough, I could have taken SOM on in
Re: [MD] Art fine art
Hi folks, We spent a fair bit of time on MD debating what is art during Grayson Perry's Reeth Lectures last year. http://www.psybertron.org/?s=reith+perry Obviously anything CAN BE art, but not anything IS art. Depends on things like care, craft and purpose from the creator side. And context, experience and understanding from the beholder and/or critic. But this is Ant's specialist subject, so I'll butt out. Ian On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:47 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Ant, It makes sense to me that we're all artists but it doesn't make sense to me that everything we do is art. Everything we do, could be art, but it depends upon the kind of attention - or caring - we give to our endeavors or acts. Couldn't it be said that Art is an offshoot or development from caring? If we care about the plumbing, we'll pay attention to what we're doing. But if we care too much, so we're obsessing over minutiae, we won't get any work done. So the guy who gives up plumbing, so he can solder to his heart's content, we call a sculptor and artist. And I do think there is a valid distinction to be made, even in solution space since we can't care about everyting, all the time. It's just unrealistic to expect. Caring more than we do now, would be good. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.ukwrote: Dear all, I don't want to tread on Ian G's effort to get some responses he's happy with to his thread about post-intellectualism so consider this a new thread. Just a quick couple of points about art, artist etc. What I now find helpful in this context when discussing the MOQ is Patrick Doorly's 2013 book The Truth About Art. I'll keep reminding anyone that I meet who is interested in both fine art AND the MOQ is there is no other text better than Patrick's about this subject IMHO. In fact, even if you are interested in the MOQ alone, Patrick's exposition of it alone is extremely sharp and in many ways (especially if you're looking for a more factual explanation) straight forward than Pirsig's two books. My review of Patrick's book can be found via this link: http://robertpirsig.org/Doorly.htm Now, Patrick firstly disposes of the notion (reflecting some key ideas from the fine art historian, Ernst Gombrich) that there is anything such as Art with a capital A. Both Patrick Gombrich say such an understanding of Art is a myth located largely with 18th century European culture and specifically the work of Kant. The latter and his supporters made fine art a little bit more mysterious and esoteric than it really is when - in practice - fine art is actually something that every kid starting school has no problem having a good bash at. (I bleive Kant never entered a fine art studio in his life so didn't really know what he was talking about). No matter, that was Zen and this is now... Coming back to Pirsig, the latter would say (and Patrick agrees with him on this point) that we are ALL artists; you can rebuild a motorcycle artfully or you can bugger around (such as the monkey like mechanics in ZMM who only secured one of Pirsig's motorcycle wheels with one properly tightened nut). Jc: Okay you've got a logical paradox going here. If we are all artists, then buggering around like monkeys, bopping to the music while we're getting paid to work on motorcycles, IS our art. Don't be square, man. See where that gets us? Ant: You can write artfully, deal with your personal relationships in an artful way; in fact do ANYTHING that requires a little bit of concentration in an artful way. I think that's the important issue when looking at art in the context of Pirsig's work. Jc: I agree. But I still say the distinction is valid and that it's the ability of certain individuals to express their caring well, that earns the distinction artist and not all rise to their level so as to make a profession of it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't all try to find something, to be excellent in, to experience the creative in a tangible and personal way. Ant: Finally, regarding the recent notion of Artists (invented by Kant friends) is that Patrick replaces the latter term with the more accurate (and always in lower case!) term fine artists. Jc: Oh, I see. He doesn't have a problem with the term, just the capitialization. I get it. Yeah, capitalization of generalizations oughta be banned in philosophy, for sure. I'm sure W. James would agree on that one. Ant: I hope that helps anyone who was wondering how art, artists and fine art could be fitted in a coherent way in the MOQ. Anyway, whether you agree with my points here or not, do try and read Patrick's book. I think it's work of art in itself! Thanks for the recommendation ,Ant. It does sound interesting indeed. Take Care, John. - On May 15, 2014, at 12:20 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote to
Re: [MD] System 1 vs System 2
Written about Kahneman several times. http://www.psybertron.org/?s=Kahneman I think the way his work is used as it is popularised in the media is increasingly wrong, but his work itself is very good. Lots of good parallels between 1 2 and MoQism, SOMism takes on intellect, backed-up with scientific evidence. Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Good morning fellows Here are an author that have received The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, (no it is NOT the Nobel Prize in Economy because that doesn't exist): David Kahneman, who have written a book called Thinking, Fast and Slow http://us.macmillan.com/thinkingfastandslow/DanielKahneman I think it is a neat little scientific report about the conflicts between the intellectual level and the social level. Or should we say, between Static patterns of thought and Dynamic Quality Thinking? :-) Jan-Anders 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
Re: [MD] System 1 vs System 2
Yes, he was brought to MD attention before ... last time in the Pirsig Central Metaphor thread back in February. David Morey has been bring him to the MD table for a while. Pearls before swine ? Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Yes Ian But I didn't find anything about DANIEL Kahneman here on MD. Are you prepared for system 3? Jan-Anders 15 maj 2014 x kl. 10.49 skrev Ian Glendinning: Written about Kahneman several times. http://www.psybertron.org/?s=Kahneman I think the way his work is used as it is popularised in the media is increasingly wrong, but his work itself is very good. Lots of good parallels between 1 2 and MoQism, SOMism takes on intellect, backed-up with scientific evidence. Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Good morning fellows Here are an author that have received The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, (no it is NOT the Nobel Prize in Economy because that doesn't exist): David Kahneman, who have written a book called Thinking, Fast and Slow http://us.macmillan.com/thinkingfastandslow/DanielKahneman I think it is a neat little scientific report about the conflicts between the intellectual level and the social level. Or should we say, between Static patterns of thought and Dynamic Quality Thinking? :-) Jan-Anders 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 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
Re: [MD] System 1 vs System 2
Lots of MD references back in 2013, 2011, maybe earlier. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, he was brought to MD attention before ... last time in the Pirsig Central Metaphor thread back in February. David Morey has been bring him to the MD table for a while. Pearls before swine ? Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Yes Ian But I didn't find anything about DANIEL Kahneman here on MD. Are you prepared for system 3? Jan-Anders 15 maj 2014 x kl. 10.49 skrev Ian Glendinning: Written about Kahneman several times. http://www.psybertron.org/?s=Kahneman I think the way his work is used as it is popularised in the media is increasingly wrong, but his work itself is very good. Lots of good parallels between 1 2 and MoQism, SOMism takes on intellect, backed-up with scientific evidence. Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Good morning fellows Here are an author that have received The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, (no it is NOT the Nobel Prize in Economy because that doesn't exist): David Kahneman, who have written a book called Thinking, Fast and Slow http://us.macmillan.com/thinkingfastandslow/DanielKahneman I think it is a neat little scientific report about the conflicts between the intellectual level and the social level. Or should we say, between Static patterns of thought and Dynamic Quality Thinking? :-) Jan-Anders 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 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
Re: [MD] System 1 vs System 2
Kahneman (4th post of the day) Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: ail.com To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) What words are you searching? I tried system 1 and found System but not System 1. Kahneman - no matches.. J-A 15 maj 2014 x kl. 11.13 skrev Ian Glendinning: Lots of MD references back in 2013, 2011, maybe earlier. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, he was brought to MD attention before ... last time in the Pirsig Central Metaphor thread back in February. David Morey has been bring him to the MD table for a while. Pearls before swine ? Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Yes Ian But I didn't find anything about DANIEL Kahneman here on MD. Are you prepared for system 3? Jan-Anders 15 maj 2014 x kl. 10.49 skrev Ian Glendinning: Written about Kahneman several times. http://www.psybertron.org/?s=Kahneman I think the way his work is used as it is popularised in the media is increasingly wrong, but his work itself is very good. Lots of good parallels between 1 2 and MoQism, SOMism takes on intellect, backed-up with scientific evidence. Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Good morning fellows Here are an author that have received The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, (no it is NOT the Nobel Prize in Economy because that doesn't exist): David Kahneman, who have written a book called Thinking, Fast and Slow http://us.macmillan.com/thinkingfastandslow/DanielKahneman I think it is a neat little scientific report about the conflicts between the intellectual level and the social level. Or should we say, between Static patterns of thought and Dynamic Quality Thinking? :-) Jan-Anders 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 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
Re: [MD] System 1 vs System 2
(5th post of the day) I use 21st century Google to search - rather than the steam-driven mailing-list sofware ;-) (PS love you Horse) Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Search results No matches were found for 'kahneman' Check the spelling of the search word(s) you used. If the spelling is correct and you only used one word, try using one or more similar search words with Any. If the spelling is correct and you used more than one word with Any, try using one or more similar search words with Any. If the spelling is correct and you used more than one word with All, try using one or more of the same words with Any. Match: Format: Sort by: Refine search: 4th post have a nice day besides, I don't think DM is a swine J-A 15 maj 2014 x kl. 11.23 skrev Ian Glendinning: Kahneman (4th post of the day) Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: ail.com To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) What words are you searching? I tried system 1 and found System but not System 1. Kahneman - no matches.. J-A 15 maj 2014 x kl. 11.13 skrev Ian Glendinning: Lots of MD references back in 2013, 2011, maybe earlier. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, he was brought to MD attention before ... last time in the Pirsig Central Metaphor thread back in February. David Morey has been bring him to the MD table for a while. Pearls before swine ? Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Yes Ian But I didn't find anything about DANIEL Kahneman here on MD. Are you prepared for system 3? Jan-Anders 15 maj 2014 x kl. 10.49 skrev Ian Glendinning: Written about Kahneman several times. http://www.psybertron.org/?s=Kahneman I think the way his work is used as it is popularised in the media is increasingly wrong, but his work itself is very good. Lots of good parallels between 1 2 and MoQism, SOMism takes on intellect, backed-up with scientific evidence. Ian On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Good morning fellows Here are an author that have received The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, (no it is NOT the Nobel Prize in Economy because that doesn't exist): David Kahneman, who have written a book called Thinking, Fast and Slow http://us.macmillan.com/thinkingfastandslow/DanielKahneman I think it is a neat little scientific report about the conflicts between the intellectual level and the social level. Or should we say, between Static patterns of thought and Dynamic Quality Thinking? :-) Jan-Anders 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 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 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
Re: [MD] Post-Intellectualism
Talk about missing the point. Pity I started this thread. Dozens of posts in, hard to know how to bring it back to the point. First reply from Arlo did miss my point, but sincerely, so dialogue was possible. Second reply from Dave, produced of smokescreen quotes cut and paste from elsewhere, and started the usual obligatory ad-hominem attacks. Disgusting behaviour. Third from Ron, provided Dave with a second opportunity for an ant-religious smokescreen out of nowhere to trample the thread into the ground, with unrelated bollox. And MD is off and running - missing the point. So starting where I started. Post-intellectual. Not non-intellectual or anti-intellectual, but the idea of intellectual but more so, more evolved, more progressive kind of intellectual. (Forget any previous coining of post-intelletual-ism, I'd like to avoid the errors of history, not re-inforce them.) How about it. An intellect informed by pre-intelletual radical-empiraical Pirsigian-quality is surely better than one that is not. Like GOF intellect, only better. Ian 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
[MD] Post-Intellectualism
You've had Post-structuralism. You've had Post-Modernism Thus side of the pond, we've even recently had Post-Christian What about Post-Intellectualism? I can't put quality into an intellectual framework for you any more than the Zen Buddhists can put the Dharma that they speak of into an absolute framework: Whatever framework you choose is always less than the Dharma itself, and whatever definition you give quality is less than quality itself. (Robert Pirsig, 1975) Ian 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
Re: [MD] Followers of James and Dewey
Don't know Auxier, but that is entertaining. Thanks John. Ian On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:39 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: ... pragmatists in the James-Dewey temper will have to learn *difficult*philosophy, something they have successfully avoided doing for about three generations, through disinclination, dullness of mind, and uninformed superstitions about the role of reason in philosophy. The inheritors of the James and Dewey temper, however, are such as to believed, quite dogmatically, that all metaphysics is bad metaphysics--and here we have a nice examples among them of the methods of tenacity, authority and the a priori method , which is what they have done in fixing their beliefs about the matter. Hence, they neither read nor understand Royce, nor Whitehead, nor anyone else who is difficult to understand, and the often dislike Peirce and do not understand him, even though they have developed a conscience about forcing themselves to read him, once. Asking contemporary pragmatists to reconsider metaphysics is recieve as though one had asked them to go to church to get a little religion, an affront to any respectable intellectual these days, especially the followers of Dewey and James. They would rather go to hell than learn logic and try some metaphysics. But most of them have done some metaphysics badly, and fail to grasp the situation until they feel Rorty's pointy nominalistic trident poking their collective behinds. Time Will and Purpose, Auxier, 120 I bet ol' Matt Kundert would get a kick out of that. 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
Re: [MD] Quality in academia
Excellent stuff Arlo ... sounds like one to add to the reading list then. PS dmb - was that a serious question? Reddit is just a social tagging application (like Twitter, Facebook and a million others) - when you've read something you tag is saying Read It and that tag is shared with anyone who follows your Reddit tags. It's not rigorous research obviously, it's as good as the community that interacts, what's popular in that community - so random chance in terms of searching from outside from outside, but more focussed from the perspective of the community population. Except for the fact that MD's mailing list technology predates all these tagging based apps, MD is no different. If someone emails a reading link to MD, other MD users can assume it probably has some significance to MoQ. As you did. Ian On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:33 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] It was Goodall's review of Frentz that made the latter day Robert Pirsig reference, not Frentz' own work. [dmb] Goodall says Frentz's biographical book is the story of a latter day Robert Pirsig-inspired Phaedrus and the subtitle of said book contains the phrase quest for quality. How is that NOT a reference to Frentz' own work? What else could he be referring to? Or are you saying that Goodall is interesting because he's making a Pirsig connection to the book even though the book is not really connected to Pirsig? He didn't find that connection in the book but fabricated the connection himself? [Arlo] For the record, I checked this out of the library the other day (its a good read), but the author (Frentz) explicitly makes the Pirsig connection himself. Echoing Robert M. Pirsig's charge in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, this narrative is my own quest for living a high quality life, both personally and professionally (p.13) And, to avoid lines of quote, in the Index, under both Phaedrus and Pirsig, are 28 separate pages listed, many in multiple page format (e.g., 20-22). There are five more pages listed under Church of Reason. So, I'd say Frentz's connection to Pirsig is without a doubt both deliberate and explicit in his book. As an aside, Frentz opens up Chapter 1 with a quote from Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. So there's that explicit link as well. 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
Re: [MD] Quality in academia
No kind of mix up. It was Goodall's review of Frentz that made the latter day Robert Pirsig reference, not Frentz' own work. That was the interesting connection I picked-up on - an interesting (recently deceased but much published) academic, making a Pirsig connection. Ian On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:00 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: I was just discussing with Ian, David, how these mixups and whims often produce more interesting paths for research than more rigorously controlled means of searching out excellence like reddit postings for instance. So however we got here, I'm glad. John On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:59 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: John said to dmb, never heard of the guy before...[...] from the essay: Why Writing Qualitative Inquiry Writing Matters @ I agree completely. H.G. , And thanks dave, for introducing me. dmb says: It looks like Dan is the one the thank for that. I was introducing Thomas Frentz's book, TRICKSTER IN TWEED: THE QUEST FOR QUALITY IN A FACULTY LIFE. I barely noticed the name of the book's reviewer and I don't know anything about him. I picked that particular review (from the linked Amazon page) simply because it explicitly ties Frentz's book to Pirsig and Phaedrus's quest Trickster in Tweed is a tour de force on academic culture written with a compelling and artful narrative style all its own. But it is also the story of a latter day Robert Pirsig-inspired Phaedrus searching not only for Quality but also for voice within an academy that too often denies or at least depreciates it. The vital connection between Quality and voice, between denial and depreciation of one and the demise of the other coupled with his own self-questioning depression and cancer is perfectly pitched to the Trickster's brave discovery that achieving one's own voice is at once a lifesaving accomplishment and an important gift of Quality to his readers and students. --H. L. Goodall, Jr., Director, Hugh Downs School of Communication, Arizona State University http://www.amazon.com/TRICKSTER-IN-TWEED-QUALITY-FACULTY/dp/159874318X Some kind of mix up, I guess. 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 -- finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries. 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
Re: [MD] Quality in academia
Interesting person, Bud Goodall. Ian On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 6:11 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: TRICKSTER IN TWEED: THE QUEST FOR QUALITY IN A FACULTY LIFE Trickster in Tweed is a tour de force on academic culture written with a compelling and artful narrative style all its own. But it is also the story of a latter day Robert Pirsig-inspired Phaedrus searching not only for Quality but also for voice within an academy that too often denies or at least depreciates it. The vital connection between Quality and voice, between denial and depreciation of one and the demise of the other coupled with his own self-questioning depression and cancer is perfectly pitched to the Trickster's brave discovery that achieving one's own voice is at once a lifesaving accomplishment and an important gift of Quality to his readers and students. --H. L. Goodall, Jr., Director, Hugh Downs School of Communication, Arizona State University http://www.amazon.com/TRICKSTER-IN-TWEED-QUALITY-FACULTY/dp/159874318X 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
Re: [MD] Introduction
Randy Auxier at Carbondale. Thanks John, noted. Ian On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: I took it as a very positive sign when, in Feb. of 07 I was meeting with Hilary and Ruth Anna Putnam about Hilary's forthcoming volume in the Library of Living Philosophers, and gracious as he always is, Hilary asked what are *you* working on? I said a book on Royce, and his face lit up as he said I *love* Royce. Hilary Putnam, the defender of Realism, convert to the philosophies of James and Dewey from the narrow straits of linguistic philosophy, *loves*Royce? That can only be a good sign. from the Preface to *Time, Will and Purpose; Living Ideas from the Philosophy of Josiah Royce* by Randall Auxier Randy is mainly a Jamesian and a breath of fresh air since my limited experience with W. James scholars has been very poor. But in Randy I've found a great mind, open to dialogue on the big ideas. Also he's a fan of Pirsig and teaches him in his classes at Carbondale - THE center for students of American Philosophers, I have learned. We have had a lot of fruitful back and forth with what he knows of James and Royce and what I know of Pirsig and I'd like to invite him to join this discussion where he would be exposed to a wider range of expertise than dilettante moi can provide but unfortunately, he's also a church-going Methodist and I'm afraid he'd just be subjected to the same inane, anti-theistic vilification I have experienced here. Plus he's pretty busy. That's probably the biggest problem we have around here - truly high quality people don't have much time to chat about it; they just get on with their lives. Maye that's a clue to us all. 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
Re: [MD] Introduction
Ant said, Platonic arrogance (if you like) that everything must be defined in some way. So out goes Dynamic Quality straight away and in comes in all those old SOM problems (that the MOQ is designed to avoid)! If only more MoQists understood that. Ian PS In my experience failure to engage with antiists on MD is simply too many other avenues to waste your time. 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
Re: [MD] Gitane anyone?
And to join the dots with the other thread, In my recent post Hold Your Definition, reviewing Dennett's Intuition Pumps he also says One of my guilty pleasures is watching eminent scientists, who only a few years ago expressed withering contempt for philosophy, stumble embarrassingly in their own efforts to set the world straight [...] with a few briskly argued extrapolations from their own scientific research. Even better is when they request, and acknowledge, a little help from us philosophers. Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss, they're no philosophers, 'cept maybe the arrogant Platonic kind and that school should be dead. Ian On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: (In the context of Stephen Hawking quoting ZMM as an inspiration for his 1988 popular science text A Brief History of Time) Ant McWatt referenced the following article, March 7th 2014: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/08/science/la-sci-sn-stephen-hawking-new-book-20130908 John Carl commented, March 8th 2014: Somebody copped you to the fact that Hawking is not my favorite guy - something to do with this statement that philosophy is dead no doubt. Would you be happy over the pronouncement of the decease of your true love? Ant McWatt comments: John, When Stephen Hawking's comment that philosophy is dead is put in its wider context, I couldn't agree more. Philip Goff, a young philosopher at my old Department helpfully provides this context for us: I don't imagine that Hawking is in a hurry to answer this philosophical challenge. The opening page of his book proclaims that philosophy is dead, due to the fact that philosophers have failed to keep up with mathematical developments in physics. This doesn't stop him, and his co-writer Leonard Mlodinow, indulging in some very crude philosophical discussions of free will and metaphysical realism in later chapters. Hawking is right to say that most philosophers don't understand cutting-edge physics. But it cuts both ways: most physicists don't understand cutting-edge philosophy. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/30/stephen-hawking-disproved-gods-role-creation Ant McWatt comments: For anyone who has read my Ph.D., they will realise by the time they reach the addendum (The MOQ Time) that there is a considerable amount of physics in the thesis - so much so, in fact, that I think it's really more a philosophy major/physics minor Ph.D. than a pure philosophy one. Well, with that in mind, I'll tell anyone that it is interested that most, if not all of the physics in the text, went over my examiners heads. I was actually rather disappointed in their lack of interest in the latter as I thought - just like Prof. Hawking - that these people (being professional philosophers) should really be getting a handle on what modern science tells us about reality. Anyway, I certainly lost some respect for most professional philosophers at this point. The phrase professional dilettante sprang to mind... No matter, that was zen and this is now. I haven't read enough of Stephen Hawking's philosophical work to make an opinion about it but I'd rather start from his intellectual position than the average philosophologist. So Ant, what got you interested in physics? Well, good question. When I started my Ph.D. studies, I was sharing a students' house in Liverpool with a French guy who was taking a pure physics degree and he left his textbooks on quantum mechanics by Richard Feynman lying around the house. What initially caught my eye about Feynman's textbooks is that the introductions had the guy pictured playing bongos! WTF!!! This famous image of Feynman is now featured on the front cover of some of the newer editions of his lectures as can be seen via the following link: http://www.flipkart.com/feynman-lectures-physics-definitive-volume-3-2nd/p/itmdytsuajzf96vm The same physics student also got me into the music of the rather cool Serge Gainsbourg and the rather lovely Jane Birkin but that's another story... Gitane anyone? . 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
Re: [MD] Introduction
Hi Dan, I've not read Auxier yet either, but you referred to: ... an apparent opposition between religion and science that I thought Robert Pirsig answered well in his writings. Rather than trying to bring back some vaguely veiled religious fundamentalism to combat the rise of science, isn't it better to incorporate science, religion, and art all under the scope of one umbrella? Terry Eagleton is on the same mission, but I'm not sure he's found MoQism yet (blogged about him recently too) but what is interesting in your comment is this. I agree, and I agree Pirsig's writings gave us the answer a synthesis of all those things. All I would question is why a negative reaction to veiled religious fundamentlism - dogmatic fundamentalism bad sure, but what about faith in quality as the basis of a living metaphysics. A strong view, lightly held. Eagleton has a fair bit to say about dogma - in all churches, reason, culture, art or religion. Ian On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: John, On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: I took it as a very positive sign when, in Feb. of 07 I was meeting with Hilary and Ruth Anna Putnam about Hilary's forthcoming volume in the Library of Living Philosophers, and gracious as he always is, Hilary asked what are *you* working on? I said a book on Royce, and his face lit up as he said I *love* Royce. Hilary Putnam, the defender of Realism, convert to the philosophies of James and Dewey from the narrow straits of linguistic philosophy, *loves*Royce? That can only be a good sign. from the Preface to *Time, Will and Purpose; Living Ideas from the Philosophy of Josiah Royce* by Randall Auxier Dan: I had never heard of Randall Auxier so when you mentioned the name in a previous post I took the time to Google him and to read the review of his Time, Will and Purpose; Living Ideas from the Philosophy of Josiah Royce on Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/Time-Will-Purpose-Living-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B00GW5KU8O/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1395214121sr=1-1keywords=Randall+Auxier] part of which I copied and pasted here: It is valuable to consider the reasons underlying the demise of interest in Royce and its recent revival. Royce was known for his rationalism and philosophy of absolute idealism, both of which fell out of favor with the rise of scientific philosophy. Most philosophers, including Auxier, currently interested in Royce do not understand themselves as philosophical absolutists or rationalists. They do, however, have an interest in reviving a form of metaphysics in philosophy which analytic philosophy in their view cast aside to its detriment. Those interested in Royce tend to think both analytic philosophy and European existential philosophy have reached dead-ends, the former because of its exclusive focus on science and the latter for its subjectivity and lack of rigor. Thinkers interested in Royce tend to have a strong interest in religion. They also tend to emphasize the many pragmatic elements in Royce, as part of a broader philosophical revivial [sic] of interest in American pragmatism. Dan comments: Without reading the book (since it is $34.54 for the Kindle version) I see that there seems to be an apparent opposition between religion and science that I thought Robert Pirsig answered well in his writings. Rather than trying to bring back some vaguely veiled religious fundamentalism to combat the rise of science, isn't it better to incorporate science, religion, and art all under the scope of one umbrella? In addition, I would like to further explore if religion as Royce expounded upon can be studied without the seemingly inherent belief in theism, faith in a supernatural being giving rise to the universe as we know it. Dave Buchanan recently recommended the book Religion Without God by Ronald Dworkin which I think is highly apropos here and what's more it's only $10 for the Kindle. From my admittedly limited readings of Royce, I doubt one can be separated from the other without damaging the intent of the author's original writings. Contrary to what some may think, I am not a theophobe in any sense of the word, but nor do I appreciate having morality rammed down my throat by those who do fear their god. I happen to believe there is good and bad in everyone but in most instances the good holds an ever so slight sway over the bad. Otherwise, I doubt we'd be talking like this. John: Randy is mainly a Jamesian and a breath of fresh air since my limited experience with W. James scholars has been very poor. But in Randy I've found a great mind, open to dialogue on the big ideas. Also he's a fan of Pirsig and teaches him in his classes at Carbondale - THE center for students of American Philosophers, I have learned. We have had a lot of fruitful back and forth with what he knows of James and Royce and what I know of Pirsig
Re: [MD] Gitane anyone?
Ant, a check, Where does Hawking say ZMM influenced his writing of Brief History ? (I can see he says he was flattered by the comparison.) Ian On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: (In the context of Stephen Hawking quoting ZMM as an inspiration for his 1988 popular science text A Brief History of Time) Ant McWatt referenced the following article, March 7th 2014: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/08/science/la-sci-sn-stephen-hawking-new-book-20130908 John Carl commented, March 8th 2014: Somebody copped you to the fact that Hawking is not my favorite guy - something to do with this statement that philosophy is dead no doubt. Would you be happy over the pronouncement of the decease of your true love? Ant McWatt comments: John, When Stephen Hawking's comment that philosophy is dead is put in its wider context, I couldn't agree more. Philip Goff, a young philosopher at my old Department helpfully provides this context for us: I don't imagine that Hawking is in a hurry to answer this philosophical challenge. The opening page of his book proclaims that philosophy is dead, due to the fact that philosophers have failed to keep up with mathematical developments in physics. This doesn't stop him, and his co-writer Leonard Mlodinow, indulging in some very crude philosophical discussions of free will and metaphysical realism in later chapters. Hawking is right to say that most philosophers don't understand cutting-edge physics. But it cuts both ways: most physicists don't understand cutting-edge philosophy. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/30/stephen-hawking-disproved-gods-role-creation Ant McWatt comments: For anyone who has read my Ph.D., they will realise by the time they reach the addendum (The MOQ Time) that there is a considerable amount of physics in the thesis - so much so, in fact, that I think it's really more a philosophy major/physics minor Ph.D. than a pure philosophy one. Well, with that in mind, I'll tell anyone that it is interested that most, if not all of the physics in the text, went over my examiners heads. I was actually rather disappointed in their lack of interest in the latter as I thought - just like Prof. Hawking - that these people (being professional philosophers) should really be getting a handle on what modern science tells us about reality. Anyway, I certainly lost some respect for most professional philosophers at this point. The phrase professional dilettante sprang to mind... No matter, that was zen and this is now. I haven't read enough of Stephen Hawking's philosophical work to make an opinion about it but I'd rather start from his intellectual position than the average philosophologist. So Ant, what got you interested in physics? Well, good question. When I started my Ph.D. studies, I was sharing a students' house in Liverpool with a French guy who was taking a pure physics degree and he left his textbooks on quantum mechanics by Richard Feynman lying around the house. What initially caught my eye about Feynman's textbooks is that the introductions had the guy pictured playing bongos! WTF!!! This famous image of Feynman is now featured on the front cover of some of the newer editions of his lectures as can be seen via the following link: http://www.flipkart.com/feynman-lectures-physics-definitive-volume-3-2nd/p/itmdytsuajzf96vm The same physics student also got me into the music of the rather cool Serge Gainsbourg and the rather lovely Jane Birkin but that's another story... Gitane anyone? . 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
Re: [MD] The (MOQ) Baffler
Craig, I read the link after all, and have to say I was underwhelmed. I disagreed with the first para (about the inchworm playing) and it was all downhill after that. What was the writer's point (in your reading of it.) Ian On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:35 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: I don't know who said: In an explicit riposte to social Darwinists, Kropotkin argued that the entire theoretical basis for Social Darwinism was wrong: those species that cooperate most effectively tend to be the most competitive in the long run. dmb says: I've heard that Darwin used the phrase survival of the fittest only twice in his famous book but he used the word love 27 times. Dan: Well, the online version (the final sixth draft) of Origins of Species only contains 3 mentions of love two of which pertain to maternal love and one to the love a dog feels for his master. Clover is mentioned numerous times and that might well skew the search for love. In addition, Darwin didn't use the phrase survival of the fittest until the fifth edition of Origins of (the) Species. The title was shortened at that time too. He continued to extensively revise the book over the years and the term evolution did not appear until the sixth edition. The opening words of the Historical Sketch read: 'I will here a give a brief sketch . . .'. and this mistake apparently wasn't noticed until the 17th printing. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373viewtype=textpageseq=1 Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
Re: [MD] The (MOQ) Baffler
John, Craig, Darwinism, like everything else, has a broad definition when you're for it and a narrow one when your aim is to criticise and reject it. Social Darwinism (in all its narrowly defined scare quotes) deserves all its bad press, but enlightened-neo-pan-Darwinism sits comfortably throughout all levels of the MoQ, social and intellectual included. Some people do know better, whether they say it, think it or know it. What matters is how they act. Intentions matter. I'll have to read the link now ;-) Ian BTW Craig, you're one of the few who took a look at my working model of the MoQ - I'd be interested in any thoughts on the twice-born metaphor of enlightened intellect. I'm planning to post a review of Terry Eagleton's Culture and the Death of God later today or tomorrow, and he gave me some interesting ideas to add there. (All relevant to socio-intellectual-Evolution, or memetics as I call it, after Dennett et al.) On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:50 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it depends upon whom you ask, Craig. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Craig Erb craig_...@ymail.com wrote: Very MOQ-like: According to many, the MOQ adopts the Darwinian struggle/competition model. It was an interesting article. Makes one wonder what the MOQ would be like today if Pirsig had been interpreting his ideas to Russians instead of Americans. In an explicit riposte to social Darwinists, Kropotkin argued that the entire theoretical basis for Social Darwinism was wrong: those species that cooperate most effectively tend to be the most competitive in the long run. JohnC 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
Re: [MD] Where Putin got his lessons
Ha, having read your 1100 word email on not (even) trusting Texans with Tanks, it didn't seem necessary - but I see now you are highlighting the contrast. Good on you. My target audience was in fact my (educated) Russian friends, who do find Putin pretty scary still. Nice one. 50 words including social niceties ;-) Ian On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, Did you click on the link in my article? Pay especial attention to Putin's words in the press conference - he made some excellent points that should have been more heeded by the American people, to wit: Putin: And taking into account the fact that the United States and the Russian Federation, as no one else, as no other country of the world, have accumulated huge amounts of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, we bear a special responsibility for maintaining common peace and security in the world -- for building a new architecture of security in the world. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: Conversely: http://www.psybertron.org/?p=6729 Ian On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:37 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: In June 2001, George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin ended their first face-to-face meeting with an outdoor news conference beneath a craggy mountaintop in Slovenia. Is this a man that Americans can trust? Bush was asked, as Putin glared at the reporter. Yes, Bush replied http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/18/bush.putin.transcript/, before allowing Putin to answer a separate question. A few minutes later, the American president elaborated: I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country, Bush said, adding a few sentence later, I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him. Putin hadn't the experience then that he has now and by that I don't mean he hadn't enough gravitas. Any leader of the largest country on earth has automatic gravitas and Russia's got the Real Estate. Power comes and goes but Acreage is permanent. No, I mean Putin hadn't had yet the experience of seeing America's reactions and actions in this post-war age. To the extent the US won the cold war, a certain power was given to wield her powerful economic system toward a better world of open democratic freedom. I'm sure the world was watching to see if, in fact, the nation could live up to it's purported ideals. But if the US could ask for a less-likely representative of our collective love of freedom, than George (W) Bush, It would have been somebody else from Texas. Texas as a regional power of North America flies a unique flag. Unlike all the other states, except California, Texas was first it's own Republic. A republic that had had more fighting and fiercer Indians and a constant enemy just over the border and cut-throat capitalism to outsiders and a fierce loyalty to friends.The cold war was ended by a Californian - but the opportunities gained, for a world worth living in, were all lost by his vice president's scion - that Texas Jungle Capitalism combined with Yankee ingenuity. I was especially sensitive when all this happened because as a Californian, I'd felt the harsh end of the stick with Texas on the other end beating us like a gong. The California electricity crisis, a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices. We in California couldn't do a FERCing thing about it since W he won the election and the regulatory board of the Federal Energy Regulation Committee all understood - there's a new sheriff in town. Nobody remembers much about 2001 except 9-11, but that attack showed up the shenanigans of companies like Enron and then the corruption of companies like Halliburton. Not that it did any permanent harm to Halliburton. They did pretty well off the wars, I'd say. and that process you've heard about? Fracking? That's a Halliburton invention. Such openly naked grabs for power are obvious to anybody who has not been brain-washed by the corporate media conglomerates and Putin isn't stupid. The thing called moral license is given by example. Do as I say, not as I do does not happen in the real world. Russians always love a strong leader and the more Putin gets in the face of Americans the more they love him for expressing their disappointment in America's politics and self-serving foreign policies. Or I should say, coporate -interest- serving. And since America does enjoy an enviable material comfort - which
Re: [MD] The Loss of the History of the Plains Talkers
Not read the links yet, but a big fan of Deirdre McCloskey, so I will be checking out. (All roads lead back to Chicago.) Thanks. Ian On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:01 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: [image: Lauck web.jpg] http://www.uiowapress.org/content/lauck-webjpg The Lost Region Toward a Revival of Midwestern History Jon K. Lauck http://www.uiowapress.org/people/jon-k-lauck Jon Lauck has written the definitive manifesto for a new midwestern historiography. Deeply researched, elegantly written, passionate yet sensible in its themes, it is a stunning book. One hopes that it will stun the coasties, for example, who believe that the fly-over states, many of them beginning with the letter I, have no serious history. Lauck shows that an America without the Midwest would have been less fair, less strong, less prosperous, and above all less democratic. Lauck is the new Frederick Jackson Turner, reminding us that the Midwest is the master spring of American history--without which, not.--Deirdre McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of History, University of Illinois at Chicago, and author, *The Bourgeois Virtues* 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
Re: [MD] The Sleep of Reason (Pirsig's Central Metaphor)
Dave said anti-intellectualism Ian says straw-man Dave also said sort of Dennett says sorta Ian says kinda Ian concludes progress. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:51 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Arlo said to dmb: Yes, I think Goya's thoughts align more with ZMM's synthesis of classic and romantic understanding than with LILA's DQ/SQ. It was with his statement that Imagination abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters that I was squinting a bit and seeing the necessary harmony between DQ and SQ come through (something like DQ abandoned by SQ produces chaos), but this was only an exercise in vague symmetry. dmb says: Yes, we get the same idea (don't abandon reason) where Pirsig says, classical, structured, dualistic subject object knowledge, although necessary, isn't enough. You have to have some feeling for the quality of the work. You have to have a sense of what's good. And that's the problem with anti-intellectualism. We do not want the kind of intellectualism that cuts off imagination or prevents us from seeing Quality but to abandon reason is to invite impossible monsters. It's regressive, reactionary, devolutionary, and even immoral. 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
Re: [MD] The Sleep of Reason (Pirsig's Central Metaphor)
Hi Arlo, Quote imagination should never be completely renounced in favor of the strictly rational ... but imagination without reason fares no better Unquote Absolutely. BTW nice to see Khan Academy cited there too, I'm seeing traction in other on-line communities potentially using it. Do you have any opinion on its wider value than this specific reference ? Ian On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:14 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: Hi All, I recently got a print of Fransisco Goya's The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters for my office, and this morning I was asked about it, and in talking about it I went back to this passage from the Khan Academy's SmartHistory. http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/goyas-the-sleep-of-reason-produces-monsters.html Imagination United with Reason In the image, an artist, asleep at his drawing table, is besieged by creatures associated in Spanish folk tradition with mystery and evil. The title of the print, emblazoned on the front of the desk, is often read as a proclamation of Goya's adherence to the values of the Enlightenment--without Reason, evil and corruption prevail. However, Goya wrote a caption for the print that complicates its message, Imagination abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters; united with her, she is the mother of the arts and source of their wonders. In other words, Goya believed that imagination should never be completely renounced in favor of the strictly rational. For Goya, art is the child of reason in combination with imagination. (Text by Sarah C. Schaefer) It strikes me that this could be a sort of proto-MOQ description of Pirsig's central metaphor. For Goya (in 1799), 'reason' was a new child of the Enlightenment. Goya's work was being done right at the moment in time the intellectual level was gaining independence from social forces. Pirsig writes, The intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of freeing itself from its parent social level, namely the church, has tended to invent a myth of independence from the social level for its own benefit. Science and reason, this myth goes, come only from the objective world, never from the social world. The world of objects imposes itself upon the mind with no social mediation whatsoever. (LILA) That was the reason Goya was talking about, science and reason come only from the objective world. While the Enlightenment gave way to the Romantic Period, which in many ways as an abandonment of intellect in favor or 'validated intense emotion' (Wikipedia), Goya seemed to point to an expansion of reason rather than a dismissal. For Goya, 'reason' without imagination led to corruption, but imagination without reason fairs no better. It is when 'reason' and 'imagination' are united that the arts flourish. Arlo PS: I am no expert on Goya, Enlightenment or Romanticism. 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
Re: [MD] Pirsig's Central Metaphor
DMB, Can't understand your reason for an MoQ101 statement of the bleedin' obvious? You even confirm that was your point. (I'm guessing this was an essay for some non-MD audience ?) The biggest straw man conceivable, to even suggest any MD reader could think otherwise. Let's have something constructive. Ian On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:21 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Dmb: All Very well said. To your last point: Implicitly, quietly, my point here is really to say that the MOQ cannot rightly be interpreted as anti-intellectual or as a vacuous relativism. Knowledge and skill are still essential features of the arts he's talking about. I'd add, It seems obvious the MoQ is not anti-intellectual, not when the MoQ is itself a highly intellectual and artful piece. The MoQ doesn't oppose intellect. The MoQ puts intellect in its proper place artfully, John 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
[MD] Daniel Kahneman - Battleground between Logic and Intuition
Don't miss today's BBC2 TV Horizon documentary. Program http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wyr3c Article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26258662 Blog http://www.psybertron.org/?s=Kahneman Ian 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Thanks Horse, I wasn't being contentious - the universe is big (in time and space) so no reason to exclude any forms of life beyond our myopic ken, in a truly metaphysical view - Not just organic in the well known carbon-based / DNA-based sense , but organic as in like a (living) organism. (Obviously in current human dictionaries - the definitions of organic are recursive on what makes life organic - hence good and useful - if they weren't you'd need to be a metaphysical philosopher to understand their bootstrapping.) Life - defined something like (Andre?) is suggesting - about self-perpetuating replication, over enough cycles for evolutionary speciation opportunities perhaps, etc (*). (Whatever the physical informational medium.) In the same way as AI is real when the A becomes (empirical) reality. A-Life is real when the A becomes reality. But virtual or artificial now, easily conceivable, predictable, etc. (*) And whatever life definition we choose, the boundaries will be blurred around self-sustaining, when we have co-evolved species like viruses - which maybe can't survive without their co-evolved host, or computer generated artefacts when the power is switched-off, etc ... but if it quacks like a duck ... etc. [Viruses are alive because of their extended phenotype, etc. We need to careful not to limit ourselves to simple patterns in a single medium, but level-crossing-patterns in level-crossing-patterns, etc. - a flock of starlings is alive, because each individual starling is, even though the relative position of two starlings is a displacement in physical (ie dead) space - no two flock formations literally recur, but their quality, their nature does.] Ian On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote: Hi Dave At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means is that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'! What we know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA, genes, proteins etc. but this is only one possible way that life may have emerged. It's a big universe and we only have a sample of one at the present time so to say that life = DNA is a big step in the wrong direction cos we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. The MoQ makes a huge (and IMO correct) generalisation that organic/biological patterns follow on from inorganic patterns. Terrestrial life is a specific instance of biological patterns of value - there may be other specific instances in other parts of the universe. What those instances should follow though, if the MoQ is correct, is that they share the same patterns of reproduction, feeding etc. that Pirsig points out in his work. Closer to home, it may be that at some point there will be other forms of life that exist but that their environment and context will be different. Artificial (or virtual) realities could well contain life (and may already) - it just depends on how you want to define and identify it. A metaphysics needs to be a generalisation that can be applied to all situations and contexts regardless of specifics - the specifics should conform to the general theory of what constitutes what is and isn't 'real'. Cheers Horse On 01/02/2014 23:50, david wrote: Ian said: The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Andre replied: Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not 'necessarily organic life' i.e. DNA 'based' life? Just interested in the non-obvious. dmb says: I was wondering about Ian's strange claim too. Since organic means of life, related to life, derived from living matter, it's hard to imagine what non-organic life would mean. DNA-based life isn't just the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of. Isn't that why a virus is considered a borderline case, because it only lives by highjacking the DNA of more proper organisms? In any case, I can only wonder what Ian is referring to. 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 -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. -- Frank Zappa --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com 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:
Re: [MD] SOM is what?
Yes John, Necessarily so give the evolved nature of Western dominated socio-cultural-intellectual society. So not necessarily so for all times and case-studies beyond human individuals - one reason why we need human patterns bigger than humans. I think it was Dave Thomas (no another old Lila-squadder?) invented their own language to avoid the SOMist traps - but of course that limits the people you can converse with. Another hero of mine Alan Rayner, uses the language of natural inclusionality which makes for very difficult (objective) communication - but these are people who understand the problem and the nature of the improvement possible if we can break SOMism. However their projects are necessarily millennial. not just lifetimes, so there need to be kulturbarer beyond the individuals - hey how about a faith-based religion - now there's a novel idea ;-) Ian On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:09 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, Fun indeed. You said: We necessarily operate in language as if our metaphysics was SOMist, And because we do so, Western Civilization sits atop the world heap of power. Of all social powers, Those influenced and formed by SOM sit on top of those that don't. Thus from a power politics view, nothing can defeat such a society as the one that is cold hearted, objective and calculating, no? When Japan learned this lesson of SOM, It became a dominant economic power like a phoenix from the ashholes. And now China is adopting a more pragmatically objective society also. So what is there that limits Objectivism, when turning everything into an object of control is so overwhelming? Only it's own weight, is all I can figure. Such a Giant topples of his own cancerous growth. There is nothing to do but wait. And dodge the pieces I guess. Artfully, John 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
Re: [MD] Proposed Wiki definiton of SOM
Hi John, Ah, that would explain nuanced - written by a committee. Could do better. Ian On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Ian, To be perfectly honest, I snagged the definition from Wiki on Philosophical Realism and substituted SOM for the term everywhere it appeared in the wiki article. My aim, as you can imagine, was to get some feedback on the idea that SOM and Philosophical Realism are one and the same. Are they? John On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Hi John, I think that's a little too nuanced. Not wrong just need something snappier before all the qualified examples. For example, first sentence - the our is so much more important than reality. Great start though. Lets work on a definitive sentence - says the man who abhors definitions :-) Ian On 27 Jan 2014 18:23, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: SOM is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. SOM may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, and thought. SOM is promoted in an unqualified sense, in that it asserts the mind-independent existence of a visible world, as opposed to skepticism and solipsism. Philosophers who profess SOM state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality. SOMists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality. In its Kantian sense, SOM is contrasted with idealism. In a contemporary sense, SOM is contrasted with the MoQ primarily in the philosophy of science. 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 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
Re: [MD] SOM is what?
John said: J: I don't [think SOM is a social pattern]. I think our society operates according to a philosophy that has SOM as it's metaphysical basis. But, I think John you were also trying to get at not just that it operates that way, but that it does necessarily so. I think it does necessarily do so for basic linguistic reasons - whether we think of the patterns as socio-cultural-intellectual, they involve humans sharing ideas about reality, subjects about objects. We necessarily operate in language as if our metaphysics was SOMist, but that doesn't stop us actually holding that it isn't - and having 15 years of fun mis-communicating with each other on MD. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail ? Or (for dmb), can you tell the green slime from your feet of clay ? The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Just life. Now, defining life replication is a key part of it, but if you're into splitting hairs you'll find everything comes in layers, including the layers Ian On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Jan Anders Huh? Obviously I know. Andre's question was about the first step, between 1 and 2 Ian On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Well Ian, Lila is an inquiry about morals. Please notice the last letter s. That means that RMP was pointing at more than one moral level. So what are the moral like at level 1 and at level 2? Just curious but still serious Jan-Anders 31 jan 2014 kl. 14:23 skrev Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com: Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail ? Or (for dmb), can you tell the green slime from your feet of clay ? The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Just life. Now, defining life replication is a key part of it, but if you're into splitting hairs you'll find everything comes in layers, including the layers Ian On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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 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
Re: [MD] Proposed Wiki definiton of SOM
Hi John, I think that's a little too nuanced. Not wrong just need something snappier before all the qualified examples. For example, first sentence - the our is so much more important than reality. Great start though. Lets work on a definitive sentence - says the man who abhors definitions :-) Ian On 27 Jan 2014 18:23, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: SOM is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. SOM may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, and thought. SOM is promoted in an unqualified sense, in that it asserts the mind-independent existence of a visible world, as opposed to skepticism and solipsism. Philosophers who profess SOM state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality. SOMists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality. In its Kantian sense, SOM is contrasted with idealism. In a contemporary sense, SOM is contrasted with the MoQ primarily in the philosophy of science. 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
Re: [MD] 42
:-) On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:39 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: John said to Arlo Dan: The ideal instructor is the one who is part of the class - learning with them. ...It's not some talking head always speaking down to you like you're an idiot. dmb says: Yes, it's very important to push back against all those MOQers who keep insisting that the ideal instructor is some talking head always speaking down to you like you're an idiot.. Obviously, these monsters have to be stopped. Please, name some names and show us their arguments - before it's too late. 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Fair enough John, but that was mainly about the Tim / Spam situation - yes? My roll-eyes was specific to the Andre / Joe exchange - and incidentally was the most polite response I could be bothered to think of. The limits of whacky / playful / neurotic tolerance are simply pragmatic - you can only care so much, eventually someone has to wash some pots. Ian On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:06 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, You recently complained about the amount of garbage in your inbox when you subscribed to lilasquad. So I thought I'd cross-post my response over there, to you here and now. I won't make it a habit, but it seemed relevant to the very thing causing your eye-rolling below. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: So Andre advises Joe to read ZMM Lila, and Joe tells me Pirsig's metaphysics is defined by words defined by logic. Roll-eyes Ian On 9 Jan 2014 19:57, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Ian and All, In DQ/SQ metaphysics words express reality through logic, logos-logic. DQ is indefinable, maintaining meaning through structure, metaphysics, words. How can a meaning of words be indefinable? One size does not fit all! Keep looking DQ/SQ until you feel satisfied! Individuality has meaning before 1 moves. DQ/SQ hosts structure, reality. Joe There is no doubt that Tim is bright. Nor is there any doubt that he has trouble being socially accepted - the signs are all around. And as people who are interested in the life and work of Robert M. Pirsig, we all have a certain amount of sympathy for intellectual social rejects. But no group can put up with an individual who is so out of whack that he refuses to abide by common communication norms. TCP/IP wouldn't work if acks were gibberish and likewise, human discourse requires a linguistic common ground in order to function. If the gibberish shows promise of evolving toward some system of understanding then we can be patient while it gets worked out, but if it's just getting more and more insane and hard to understand, then it's going in the wrong direction. And blurting out gibberish has a way of putting off newcomers to the list - it obviates growth which means it's violent towards any success. None of us are here solely to please ourselves. We all want better communication and understanding. Without that premise, that caring, we are doomed. It takes caring about others, to put your words and ideas into easily understood format. When that care is not taken, it shows the opposite of care - it shows disdain. Tim may hate his mother, hate his life, hate the world he lives in, but why should we all be the brunt of his anger? We didn't cause his problems. The fact that we can't solve them isn't because we don't care, it's just the way reality works. Work out YOUR OWN salvation in fear and trembling. (Phil. 2:12) Don't come bugging us about it. Maybe I'm wrong about all this. I'm willing to listen to reason. But spamming my inbox with verbal temper tantrums just pisses me off. John 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Hi Dan, We agree enough is enough. If I may focus on your final para: The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its own? And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of external (objective) reality? So far as I know, the MOQ subsumes objective and subjective reality into a framework of value. Are these values to be found in Lila and ZMM? I think there is a lot on this. The culture of this group should comprise the values we find in Lila and ZMM sure. Playful (whether worldly / knowing or naive / neurotic) social interaction is simply part of being a group - the bit we agree needs to be within limits of tolerance, caring for each other as individuals, to use John's language. But the core culture is of course schizophernic / split-personality between ZMM and Lila. (And Paul gave us a two views perspective on this.) Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem intent on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some objective subject-object dialectic. (Mark / 118 said as much recently). For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I respect their rights to do so - in an academic context. What I can't accept is this agenda subsuming the whole art rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which only flourishes without the overly objective shackles. Half dead is not alive. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
To which I should add two points Dan, (1) Which is precisely where you were in your recent exchange with Marsha, before you both flipped your playful tolerance bits. (2) And why I say as carefully (caringly) as I can to DMB (the champion / paragon of aiming to get MoQ on a serious academic footing) - Careful Dave, you're killing the MoQ in the process. Ian On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, We agree enough is enough. If I may focus on your final para: The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its own? And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of external (objective) reality? So far as I know, the MOQ subsumes objective and subjective reality into a framework of value. Are these values to be found in Lila and ZMM? I think there is a lot on this. The culture of this group should comprise the values we find in Lila and ZMM sure. Playful (whether worldly / knowing or naive / neurotic) social interaction is simply part of being a group - the bit we agree needs to be within limits of tolerance, caring for each other as individuals, to use John's language. But the core culture is of course schizophernic / split-personality between ZMM and Lila. (And Paul gave us a two views perspective on this.) Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem intent on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some objective subject-object dialectic. (Mark / 118 said as much recently). For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I respect their rights to do so - in an academic context. What I can't accept is this agenda subsuming the whole art rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which only flourishes without the overly objective shackles. Half dead is not alive. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
And your point Joe ? Ian On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Ian, Metaphysics, physics. Why two words? There is a point to logic. Joe On 1/7/14 1:31 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: When are we going to lose these pointless degenerate myths like free will is undefinable ffs? 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
So Andre advises Joe to read ZMM Lila, and Joe tells me Pirsig's metaphysics is defined by words defined by logic. Roll-eyes Ian On 9 Jan 2014 19:57, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Ian and All, In DQ/SQ metaphysics words express reality through logic, logos-logic. DQ is indefinable, maintaining meaning through structure, metaphysics, words. How can a meaning of words be indefinable? One size does not fit all! Keep looking DQ/SQ until you feel satisfied! Individuality has meaning before 1 moves. DQ/SQ hosts structure, reality. Joe On 1/9/14 12:50 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: And your point Joe ? Ian On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Ian, Metaphysics, physics. Why two words? There is a point to logic. Joe On 1/7/14 1:31 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: When are we going to lose these pointless degenerate myths like free will is undefinable ffs? 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 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Hi John, Yes. Or to bastardise a Pirsig phrase: Do we need anyone to define these things for us ? Ian On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:42 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: I had a thought the other day Ian about this subject. Help me to see if it fits. Terms like intellect and free will are tricky to define because they are experiences, not definitions. You experience intellect when you think in certain ways. Trying to pin that down exactly is a pain in the butt, but the experience of doing it is plain and obvious. Same goes with free will. It's not a real big problem unless you run up against somebody who thinks everything that is real is definable. On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: When are we going to lose these pointless degenerate myths like free will is undefinable ffs? Free will is as well (un)defined as any other object in this real MoQish world. Still, I guess it helps to maintain the mysterious myth if your objective is to justify interminable gain-saying argument for as long as your academic career requires it. Ian On 7 Jan 2014 20:10, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Andre and All, DQ/SQ, indefinable/definable! A structure which supports indefinable reality must include aspects of reality which are indefinable like free-will which remains outside of definition through freedom. If I can't make a mistake in what I choose I am not held responsible for my choice. I have to pay the consequences of the choice. Free will makes manifest metaphysical restraints for manifestation in the DQ/SQ structure. Pardon me I am mistaken! Joe On 1/7/14 8:46 AM, Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote: Joe to Andre: DQ experience itself is indefinable metaphysics. Andre: Huh? Joe: Consciousness of individuality coupled with life anchors a possibility for describing an experience of indefinable reality. Metaphysics MOQ accepts a reality of DQ/SQ experience in individuality. Sentient consciousness, freewill, upholds the awareness needed for DQ/SQ. Animals follow mechanical instinct. Andre: Sorry Joe but I have no idea what you are saying...what point(s)you are trying to make. 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 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
Re: [MD] Greetings and Happy New Year
JC, you said ... yup. And you make a good case for excluding people who purposely clog the airwaves with B.S, Ouch! Ian 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
Re: [MD] Greetings and Happy New Year
I trusted you didn't JC - it's the other idiots reading it I worry about :-) Ian On 7 Jan 2014 17:29, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Oh lordy, I hope you didn't think I meant YOU, Ian. On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: JC, you said ... yup. And you make a good case for excluding people who purposely clog the airwaves with B.S, Ouch! Ian 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
When are we going to lose these pointless degenerate myths like free will is undefinable ffs? Free will is as well (un)defined as any other object in this real MoQish world. Still, I guess it helps to maintain the mysterious myth if your objective is to justify interminable gain-saying argument for as long as your academic career requires it. Ian On 7 Jan 2014 20:10, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Andre and All, DQ/SQ, indefinable/definable! A structure which supports indefinable reality must include aspects of reality which are indefinable like free-will which remains outside of definition through freedom. If I can't make a mistake in what I choose I am not held responsible for my choice. I have to pay the consequences of the choice. Free will makes manifest metaphysical restraints for manifestation in the DQ/SQ structure. Pardon me I am mistaken! Joe On 1/7/14 8:46 AM, Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote: Joe to Andre: DQ experience itself is indefinable metaphysics. Andre: Huh? Joe: Consciousness of individuality coupled with life anchors a possibility for describing an experience of indefinable reality. Metaphysics MOQ accepts a reality of DQ/SQ experience in individuality. Sentient consciousness, freewill, upholds the awareness needed for DQ/SQ. Animals follow mechanical instinct. Andre: Sorry Joe but I have no idea what you are saying...what point(s)you are trying to make. 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
Re: [MD] Greetings and Happy New Year
John, when you say LS you mean the Google Group called Lila Squad or another site (one of many blog forum attempts with the Lila Squad name) ? So far as I can see the LSGG is same old same old - Bo calling everyone SOMists and Platt egging him on with anti-democratic rants ? That plus resurrection of 200 year old philosophic problems long since solved, and a lot of unfiltered spam. (Surprisingly I've tried to r-engage Bo a few times in the last couple of years, but all he ever does is hurl ignorant insults.) Anyway, incidentally after posting on only a handful of threads on MD in the last couple of years I too was heard to remark in December on seeing a Marsha conversation with Dan that it was great to be reminded of why I remained subscribed to MD. Sadly very few people on any related discussion site actually listen to any post 1980's contributions. Each finds a refuge on which to argue their own points on their own terms - as if antagonism was the point of the exercise.Twas ever thus. I've concluded editorially managed channels are the only hope for constructive progress, and there are plenty of those around. Ian On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:32 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: I had applied to Horse and was waiting for news of acceptance for about a week, when I finally noticed an old filter over on the sidebar of gmail, that I remembered setting up to keep MD out of my in box and in it's own category. Oops. I was sorry to hear about Marsha. I'd been missing Marsha was one reason I came back to MD. We never hear from Marsha at LS, she doesn't adulterate at all where even horse popped his head over the door occasionally. Which I encourage others to join. I think a two-fold approach is a good idea, one classic, one romantic and it would keep silly nonesense in one sphere and solid discussion in another. People could choose to their mood and not have the wrong stuff foisted on 'em. And I always hoped Marsha would join over there. Isn't Lila her model and mode? But oh well. People rarely listen to my advice and the longer they know me, the less likely they are to take it So I can't complain. I'm glad to be back anyway and hoping for more cordial relations with all. I was heavily influenced by a passage in a bookhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metaphysical_Club:_A_Story_of_Ideas_in_AmericaI recently read, that described an interaction between John Dewey and Jane Addams wherein Addams convinced Dewey of her belief that antagonism is, metaphysically speaking, illusory. I thought about that a bit and I realized I really liked the idea. Who wouldn't want to live in a world without antagonism? So I'm going to commit myself to that idea and see if I can't be more productive in my interactions. A new year's resolution, if you will. John 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
Re: [MD] Greetings and Happy New Year
Hmmm, I didn't say moderated I really did mean editorial control. Comment threads on web content are so last decade lots of discussion why they will never work your friend should get depressed, I'm sure Horse doesn't. (Anyway - Tim / Rapsncows was pure - offensive and downright aggressive - spam when he was on here, and seems he's the same over there.) (Joined your love-fest over there for a day.) Ian On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ian, On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: John, when you say LS you mean the Google Group called Lila Squad or another site (one of many blog forum attempts with the Lila Squad name) ? j: Yes, I meant the LilaSquad group that Mary initiated. It's a small discussion group. So far as I can see the LSGG is same old same old - Bo calling everyone SOMists and Platt egging him on with anti-democratic rants ? j:Well Platt posts rarely. Bo is quite prolific on his own without need for much egging. But I find trying to argue with him has been jolly good exercise. I can't bench press 300 pounds either, but trying does build muscle. i: That plus resurrection of 200 year old philosophic problems long since solved, and a lot of unfiltered spam. j: you must mean tim there. I don't think he believes in speaking plainly but it's not really spam so much as unfiltered craziness. (Surprisingly I've tried to r-engage Bo a few times in the last couple of years, but all he ever does is hurl ignorant insults.) Anyway, incidentally after posting on only a handful of threads on MD in the last couple of years I too was heard to remark in December on seeing a Marsha conversation with Dan that it was great to be reminded of why I remained subscribed to MD. Sadly very few people on any related discussion site actually listen to any post 1980's contributions. Each finds a refuge on which to argue their own points on their own terms - as if antagonism was the point of the exercise.Twas ever thus. j: well, if so then that itself is an interesting phenom. But there is so little conversation to be had about Pirsig and his ideas, anywhere in the world, that the fact that a group of people do so is a rare and valuable treat and we all ought to be grateful rather than antagonistic. i: I've concluded editorially managed channels are the only hope for constructive progress, and there are plenty of those around. Ian An old friend of mine, Steve Marquis (who used to belong to MD) is the moderator for a discussion group on stoicism and he says its getting more and more discouraging - the kind of reasoning that passes for sound these days. Tsk tsk. We are starting to sound like old curmudgeons - kids these days don't care about reason, they use logic to justify socially-transferred opinions... but as you say, twas ever thus. John the curmudgeon 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
Re: [MD] Greetings and Happy New Year
And last one for today JC. Did I say a day ? Unsubscribed from LS GG after under 1 hour. Already 20 or 30 (automated) spam mails from Tim Rapsncows - need to recognise spam when you see it. Ian PS - You have my email if you need to communicate. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm, I didn't say moderated I really did mean editorial control. Comment threads on web content are so last decade lots of discussion why they will never work your friend should get depressed, I'm sure Horse doesn't. (Anyway - Tim / Rapsncows was pure - offensive and downright aggressive - spam when he was on here, and seems he's the same over there.) (Joined your love-fest over there for a day.) Ian On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ian, On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote: John, when you say LS you mean the Google Group called Lila Squad or another site (one of many blog forum attempts with the Lila Squad name) ? j: Yes, I meant the LilaSquad group that Mary initiated. It's a small discussion group. So far as I can see the LSGG is same old same old - Bo calling everyone SOMists and Platt egging him on with anti-democratic rants ? j:Well Platt posts rarely. Bo is quite prolific on his own without need for much egging. But I find trying to argue with him has been jolly good exercise. I can't bench press 300 pounds either, but trying does build muscle. i: That plus resurrection of 200 year old philosophic problems long since solved, and a lot of unfiltered spam. j: you must mean tim there. I don't think he believes in speaking plainly but it's not really spam so much as unfiltered craziness. (Surprisingly I've tried to r-engage Bo a few times in the last couple of years, but all he ever does is hurl ignorant insults.) Anyway, incidentally after posting on only a handful of threads on MD in the last couple of years I too was heard to remark in December on seeing a Marsha conversation with Dan that it was great to be reminded of why I remained subscribed to MD. Sadly very few people on any related discussion site actually listen to any post 1980's contributions. Each finds a refuge on which to argue their own points on their own terms - as if antagonism was the point of the exercise.Twas ever thus. j: well, if so then that itself is an interesting phenom. But there is so little conversation to be had about Pirsig and his ideas, anywhere in the world, that the fact that a group of people do so is a rare and valuable treat and we all ought to be grateful rather than antagonistic. i: I've concluded editorially managed channels are the only hope for constructive progress, and there are plenty of those around. Ian An old friend of mine, Steve Marquis (who used to belong to MD) is the moderator for a discussion group on stoicism and he says its getting more and more discouraging - the kind of reasoning that passes for sound these days. Tsk tsk. We are starting to sound like old curmudgeons - kids these days don't care about reason, they use logic to justify socially-transferred opinions... but as you say, twas ever thus. John the curmudgeon 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Try this: Persons are supervenient on their biological and physical bodies - human, male, female, whatever. The personality is the sum of historical evolutionary development of the species, the sex, and the individual. Something like 10% genetic (species and sex), 40% individual, biological (inc sex), parental, and taught development, and 50% individual socio-cultural-peer group (inc sex) development. Women differ from men, biologically (in brain-mind ways as well as the obvious other physiological, physiochemical ways.) http://www.psybertron.org/?p=6525 (Male-Female brain-wiring) http://www.psybertron.org/?p=4923 (Human brain-mind functioning) Ian (All scare quotes intended.) On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Richard Skillen skillen.rich...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I would postulate, that the non-physical difference between man and woman is a difference in value, to meet their different needs. This subtle variation in value has trickled down, to larger personal and social differences. This difference in value, logically, would be derived from the physical differences; The protection and safety required during pregnancy, being a stand out. It seems tightly knitted, I wrote this in a hurry, to make the point that generally there must be a difference between men and women. So I ask, What are they? To what use can these or any gross generalisation of human interaction be put to? Regards, Richard On 2 Jan 2014, at 22:05, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Andre and All, I do not doubt that there is a physical differentiation between men and women. Both are sentient beings. What about angels?. What is the criteria for the differentiated aesthetic continuum? Language? Does undifferentiated aesthetic continuum contain the experience of reality like sentient? Does reality impose further differentiations for verification like alive or dead? Joe On 1/2/14 12:50 PM, Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure about this Joesince Northrop 'defines' reality as the 'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum' I doubt if there is a differentiation in experience/perspective. 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
[MD] Physical Biological Foundations of Individual, Social Intellectual
No secret I've been a big fan of Dan Dennett for many years. He published his greatest hits in 2013 (called Intuition Pumps) A recommended read - not least because he's the philosopher that has successfully and credibly engaged with so many public scientists, whilst still maintaining his metaphysical philosophical passion. (He has some interesting things to say about scientists who should know better, even tough he was one of the 4 horseman in the science vs faith debates.) Specifically he is very strong in defending a monist stack from primary physics to the highest levels of consciousness, based on understanding how each layer evolves from the layer underneath. I increasingly see Dennett as mainstream thoroughgoing scientific philosophy support for Pirsig's model. Totally debunking so many philosophers paradoxical mind games - sorry, though experiments in the process. Read what he has to say. or skim my opinionated thoughts here: http://www.psybertron.org/?p=6539 http://www.psybertron.org/?p=6547 Ian 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
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
He he. It's days like this I'm glad I'm still subscribed to MD. Thanks Marsha Dan. Ian On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Tear those books up, Marsha. Make 'em sad they were ever printed. Me, I ordered three dozen copies of my various books and gave them out to the owners, managers, salesmen, service writers, secretaries, mechanics, and porters at the auto dealership where I sorta make a show of working every now and then. Most times I just hang out in back and read books on my Android. Anyway, some of them were happy, some didn't give a crap, one gorgeous little blonde gal who I'd really like to pork acted like a kid on Christmas morning, and one guy told me he actually writes too... one of the Mexican porters who details cars. Who'd a thunk it. I felt like I was handing out blankets to hobos. Maybe I was. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:14 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Greetings, Just ordered a used library copy of zAmm to use the pages for creating art journal. Being a bibliophile it is always painful to destroy a book, and I have a great love for this book in particular, but what the heck!!! S symbolic. Not as dramatic as tattooing a paragraph on my body, but more personal in so many ways. Btw, if you were to tattoo a paragraph, which would it be? And why? Marsha 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 -- http://www.danglover.com 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
Re: [MD] Reith Lectures
Well, I didn't notice that Marsha, By the time I got to the 4th lecture, I must have been flagging. I blogged notes about the first three, but got side-tracked by day-job pressures by the time I got to the fourth. I found the whole series credible and sensible, but the art critical press found it all too boring - not earth-shatteringly anti-establishment enough - so positive public media comment dropped off very quickly after the final lecture. I must listen again. Ian On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Greetings, I just finished the fourth and final lecture by Grayson Perry. Lo and behold, Perry mentions and paraphrases a quote (stated as a favorite of his) from ZAMM. Bravo for the lectures and his good taste in quotes. Marsha 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
Re: [MD] Reith Lectures
Understood Marsha. In fact there has been a media backlash against Perry since his rise to Reith lecture fame. He's become what we call euphemistically in little-old-UK a national treasure - someone we all love and defend for no obvious reason at the present time. Like you I think what he says is enlightened, by the wisdom of experience, even (especially) when it's not shockingly original (part of his point of course). Ian On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Ian, I had no expectations, so just enjoyed Perry talking about art. While he was quite humorous, underneath he was quite insightful. The reference to ZAMM was in the QA. Thanks for announcing the lectures. Marsha On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:12 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I didn't notice that Marsha, By the time I got to the 4th lecture, I must have been flagging. I blogged notes about the first three, but got side-tracked by day-job pressures by the time I got to the fourth. I found the whole series credible and sensible, but the art critical press found it all too boring - not earth-shatteringly anti-establishment enough - so positive public media comment dropped off very quickly after the final lecture. I must listen again. Ian On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Greetings, I just finished the fourth and final lecture by Grayson Perry. Lo and behold, Perry mentions and paraphrases a quote (stated as a favorite of his) from ZAMM. Bravo for the lectures and his good taste in quotes. Marsha 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 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
Re: [MD] Divided brain
Excellent, hadn't spotted that. (Shared McGilchrist's book and animated lecture here before, but not seen this interview / paper.) Ian On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:50 PM, David Morey david...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Hi All Does SQ and DQ divide our brain? http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/1016083/RSA-Divided-Brain-Divided-World.PDF Great download you should all read. David M 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
Re: [MD] Thinkers and Rainers?
All, The idea of I and Consciousness as entities in the sense of objective existence in an ontology, is clearly misguided for any of us who already reject SOMism. In their noun sense just a figure of speech sure, but from a process, functional potentiality sense, they are far more than a figure of speech - they're all we have. Epistemologically they are what we mean by I and consciousness. They are real enough, it is only their objectivity as our subject that is illusory. It's worth remembering that an ontology is simply something we deem pragmatically useful, like figures of speech in language, a functional pattern worth giving a name to, not fundamental reality itself. The words exist and entity are the figures of speech. Good to see the fundamental process dynamic of such (static) patterns coming to the fore. Ian On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: I think, therefore I am? The most famous certainty isn't at all certain. The absurdity of this assertion becomes clearer once we switch subjects. We’ve all used the common expression “It’s raining.” But would we say, “It is raining, therefore it is”? What is raining? Do we suppose there is some entity corresponding to the word “it” which is doing the raining? No, of course not! -- Steven Hagen in Ergo Sum? http://dharmafield.org/resources/texts/ergo-sum/ But I think Hagen is borrowing this criticism from Nietzsche. As Wiki says... That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the I, is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an I, that there is such an activity as thinking, and that I know what thinking is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be it thinks. In other words the I in I think could be similar to the It in It is raining. William James also attacks this Cartesian self as a non-entity... I believe that consciousness, when once it has evaporated to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of disappearing altogether. It is the name of a nonentity, and has no right to a place among first principles. Those who still cling to it are clinging to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the disappearing soul upon the air of philosophy. During the past year, I have read a number of articles whose authors seemed just on the point of abandoning the notion of consciousness, and substituting for it that of an absolute experience not due to two factors. But they were not quite radical enough, not daring enough in their negations. For twenty years past I have mistrusted conscousness as an entity: for seven or eight years past I have suggested its non-existence to my students, and tried to give them its pragmatic equivalent in realities of experience. It seems to me that the hour is ripe for it to be openly and universally discarded. To deny plumply that consciousness exists seems so absurd on the face of it — for undeniably thoughts do exist — that I fear some readers will follow me no farther. Let me then immediately explain that I mean only to deny that the word stands for an entity, but to insist most emphatically that it does stand for a function. There is, I mean, no aboriginal stuff or quality of being, contrasted with that of which material objects are made, out of which our thoughts of them are made; but there is a function in experience which thoughts perform, and for the performance of which this quality of being is invoked. That function is knowing. Consciousness is supposed necessary to explain the fact that things not only are, but get reported, are known. Whoever blots out the notion of consciousness from his list of first principles must still provide in some way for that function's being carried on. Three ways of saying the same thing. This is how Pirsig treats the subject of SOM too. It's just a figure of speech, he says. 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
Re: [MD] Zen at War
Dave, excellent, I've seen Zen at War thrown back at many a discussion where the eastern not-this / not-that core of SOM-free philosophy is discussed (not on MD, naturally), and as you point out when it comes to applying the ideas of Zen Buddhism (or any western philosophy for that matter) through religious or warlike codes, it is necessary to get real before trading the life and death complexities of political and violent actions in war as a kind of atrocity one-up-man-ship, to throw the blame back at the underlying ism, usually with a political motivation not actually supported by the original idea. I often think that is the problem with the discourse on MD, it's all social patterns intent on killing intellectual ideas, including MoQism, unlike MoQism itself. Ian On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, David Thomas combinedeffo...@earthlink.net wrote: All, For quite some time many here have had their knickers in a knot over Marsha's interpretation of Pirsig's work vis-à-vis Buddhism. The latest pissing and moaning centers around this: [Pirsig ZaMM pg 82] Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange. Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been correct, but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up. [Dave] If Phædrus was so disgusted with Eastern philosophy then; Why was it so imperative to marry it to Western philosophy later on? And why pick the most militant leaning of all Buddhism's, Zen. Was he so socially and historically unaware of the Oriental history that he did not understand that Zen and the Art of Archery. in historical terms was really, Zen and the Art of Killing People with a Bow and Arrow If philosophy in Western societies was deemed so critical to their underlying social problems; Why was Zen not evaluated vis-à-vis Eastern societies and their historic social problems? You know observe, like empiricism is supposed to do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War It's not like the information wasn't available. The D.T. Suzuki mentioned negatively on this website published Zen and Japanese Culture in 1938 which was is based on lectures given in America and England in 1936. It was republished for the mass market in English in 1959. Roughly 1/3 of the book deals with Zen's adoption and use to cultivate warriors over a period of 1300 years until Japan emerged in the Meiji period (1864) as an aggressive, militant, nationalist society that waged imperialist wars upon its neighbors until they were finally stopped by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From Suzuki's second chapter, Zen and the Samurai we read: In Japan, Zen was intimately related from the beginning of its history to the life of the samurai. ...Zen has sustained them in two ways, morally and philosophically. Morally, because Zen is a religion which teaches us not to look backward once a course is decided upon; philosophically, because it treats life and death indifferently. In those days we can say that the Japanese genius went either to the priesthood of to soldiery. The spiritual cooperation of the two professions could not help but contribute to the creation of what is now generally known as Bushido, the way of the warrior. What finally has come to constitute Bushido,... [is] loyalty, filial piety, and benevolence...and to always be ready to face death, that is, to sacrifice oneself unhesitatingly when the occasion arises. We see this bending of the national psyche of Japan to this Zen philosophy prior to and during WWII is akin to the fanaticism of radical Islam today. The individual, the self, both yours and your enemy's is nonexistent, there is no shared humanity, only duty to the Ideas of loyalty and filial piety to your society. This maybe a great strategy when you are on the attack but when you are losing and your defeat is all but assured, it appears as sheer madness. A complete national loss of rationality. And that can scare the fuck out of your enemy causing them to treat you and you treated them. Tit for Tat psychology. What we observe, empirically, is when Zen [as] a religion which teaches us not to look backward once a course is decided upon, it flies fully in the face of pragmatism with most always disastrous consequences. [DMB] I think it would be safe to say that being murdered by atomic weapons or by genocide would count as a violation of human rights. As Pirsig points out even with respect to imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer, the evolutionary growth and the intellectual freedom of dead people is extremely limited. Kaput. Marsha's answer isn't just incorrect. It's also morally
Re: [MD] Thinkers and Rainers?
Yes, the only light at the end of the tunnel is that we may finally be seeing the death throws of DMB's anti-personnel-rhetoric - with luck, as you say. Ian On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, David Morey david...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Hi all I'd just like to warn anyone who can think for themselves to ignore DMB's silly and dogmatic SOM red flag waving, the world of SOM criticism is clearly much wider than DMB's rather limited reading list implies, and this reactionary scare mongering will see the MOQ disappear into the margins and be forgotten I fear. If anyone wants to follow a genuinely open exploration of non-dualist thinking in a broader and better connected tradition I recommend Speculative Realism, shame really, the MOQ deserves better. All the best, good luck, you will need it. David Morey david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Ian said to All: The idea of I and Consciousness as entities in the sense of objective existence in an ontology, is clearly misguided for any of us who already reject SOMism. dmb says: Sadly, it seems that some people don't really understand what it means to reject SOM. David Morey's recent quest for realism and Marsha's long-held anti-intellectualism, for example, are different ways to misunderstand the subject-object problem and its solution. That's why I posted this thing about rejecting the Cartesian thinker. It's not enough to simply say that the idea is misguided, of course. They both SAY they're opposed and yet they both demonstrate all kinds of misconceptions, with David trying to sneak objectivity back into the picture and Marsha constantly confusing the cure (MOQ) with the disease (SOM). There's a Wikipedia page on this problem, where it says Robert M. Pirsig's philosophy of the Metaphysics of Quality is largely concerned with the subject–object problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem It's not the best source, that's for sure. But it would be a good place to start for those who are generally disoriented. Check it out. On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: I think, therefore I am? The most famous certainty isn't at all certain. The absurdity of this assertion becomes clearer once we switch subjects. We’ve all used the common expression “It’s raining.” But would we say, “It is raining, therefore it is”? What is raining? Do we suppose there is some entity corresponding to the word “it” which is doing the raining? No, of course not! -- Steven Hagen in Ergo Sum? http://dharmafield.org/resources/texts/ergo-sum/ But I think Hagen is borrowing this criticism from Nietzsche. As Wiki says... That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the I, is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an I, that there is such an activity as thinking, and that I know what thinking is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be it thinks. In other words the I in I think could be similar to the It in It is raining. William James also attacks this Cartesian self as a non-entity... I believe that consciousness, when once it has evaporated to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of disappearing altogether. It is the name of a nonentity, and has no right to a place among first principles. Those who still cling to it are clinging to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the disappearing soul upon the air of philosophy. During the past year, I have read a number of articles whose authors seemed just on the point of abandoning the notion of consciousness, and substituting for it that of an absolute experience not due to two factors. But they were not quite radical enough, not daring enough in their negations. For twenty years past I have mistrusted conscousness as an entity: for seven or eight years past I have suggested its non-existence to my students, and tried to give them its pragmatic equivalent in realities of experience. It seems to me that the hour is ripe for it to be openly and universally discarded. To deny plumply that consciousness exists seems so absurd on the face of it — for undeniably thoughts do exist — that I fear some readers will follow me no farther. Let me then immediately explain that I mean only to deny that the word stands for an entity, but to insist most emphatically that it does stand for a function. There is, I mean, no aboriginal stuff or quality of being, contrasted with that of which material objects are made, out of which our thoughts of them are made; but there is a function in experience which thoughts perform, and for the performance of which this quality of being is invoked. That function is knowing. Consciousness is supposed necessary to
Re: [MD] Zen at War
We know. Talk about missing the point. Ian On 21 Oct 2013 20:49, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Dave Thomas said: ...The D.T. Suzuki mentioned negatively on this website published Zen and Japanese Culture in 1938 which was is based on lectures given in America and England in 1936. It was republished for the mass market in English in 1959. ... dmb says: It might interest some people to know that William James knew D. T. Suzuki and talked with him about pure experience (aka DQ) and Suzuki is considered to have been the foremost explainer of Zen to the West. Alan Watts was his star student. According to the author of SCIOUSNESS AND CON-SCIOUSNESS: WILLIAM JAMES AND THE PRIME REALITY OF NON-DUAL EXPERIENCE, Jonathan Bricklin,... Suzuki, for his part, immediately saw the connection between James’s pure ex- perience and Zen, and introduced James’s writings to his teacher Kitaro Nishida. Nishida not only directly appropriated James’s analysis, but also his expression ‘‘pure experience’’ in seeking to translate the direct-experience satori upon which Zen is based. Suzuki, too, appropriated the phrase ‘‘pure experience’’ to define ‘‘this most fundamental experience . . . beyond differentiation’’ ABSTRACT: William James’s radical empiricism of ‘‘pure experience’’ both anticipated and directly influenced the transmission of Zen in the West. In this centennial reconstruction, the author shows how the man called both the ‘‘father of American Psychology’’ and the ‘‘father of transpersonal psychology’’ was also the father of a Western approach to enlightenment. Relying mainly on introspection and ether- induced states, James made a crucial distinction between con-sciousness (consciousness-with-self) and sciousness (consciousness-without-self). Prime reality, he maintained, is not revealed through the subject- object divide, but in the ‘‘sciousness’’ of non-dual experience. The coherence of organized experience (both static and successive) is accounted for without an organizing ‘‘I.’’ The ‘‘I’’ itself is seen not as the foundation of consciousness, but as a reverberation within it: a palpitating core of welcoming and opposing emotions. 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
Re: [MD] Thinkers and Rainers?
Arlo, Problems with the MoQ? Nah, keep up. Problems with dmb dogma dominated MD more like. Not alternatives to more complementary views of, views that fill in gaps for the open minded. Ian On 21 Oct 2013 21:45, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [DM] If anyone wants to follow a genuinely open exploration of non-dualist thinking in a broader and better connected tradition I recommend Speculative Realism, shame really, the MOQ deserves better. [Arlo] This is an interesting statement. What does the MOQ deserves better mean? Are you suggesting Speculative Realism as an alternative to Pirsig's MOQ? Or are you suggesting that elements of Speculative Realism can be used to enhance Pirsig's philosophy? And if the latter, why not a full replacement? Does Pirsig's MOQ offer something that Speculative Realism lacks? Are you suggesting a symbiotic joining to address insufficiencies in both? Also, a while back you said... [DM] I can't see any benefit in me setting out how I understand what James, Pirsig, Northrop are saying because I am arguing that what they appear to be saying in certain specific ways is wrong or confusing, it seems to me that the people who disagree with me should be able to show me why I am wrong or how I can resolve my concerns by changing my approach... If people do not make an effort to understand my view and why it reveals problems in the MOQ... [Arlo] I think what people have been saying is that your views do not reveal problems in the MOQ because you are misunderstanding what Pirsig, James and Northrop have said. You refuse to accept this, and keep insisting that your problems are the result of faulty reasoning on the parts of Pirsig, James and Northrop. However, you seem convinced that Speculative Realism addresses the problems of Pirsig, James and Northrop. So, try as I might I can't find a clear articulation of what exactly you feel is deficient in Pirsig, and if/how Speculative Realism extends/replaces his ideas? What does Speculative Realism offer that Pirsig/James/Northrop do not? 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
[MD] Quality - Democracy has Bad Taste
Hi folks, I hope you guys are listening to Grayson Perry ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt/live Ian 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
Re: [MD] Static Patterns Rock!
Wow, Joe, I'm moved to say absolutely. I agree. See my most recent blog post today - but in essence, the objective logic of science cannot cope with the reality of DQ - truly radical empiricism is before objectification and hence beyond scientific logic. Ian. On 7 Oct 2013 20:49, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi David M and All, Modern science owes a great debt to the rigid logic in mathematics. Mathematics can only describe definable SQ. DQ is indefinable, outside a purview of mathematical structure. This explains the need for the reality of DQ/SQ metaphysics in the further discernment of reality beyond the logic in mathematics. Joe On 10/7/13 8:10 AM, David Morey david...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Great, now my proposal is that we then accept that percepts contain regularities and patterns, can we not measure percepts, is that not what science does? This is why MOQ can embrace science and realism but reject SOM, 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
Re: [MD] Physical experience
Hi David, That's 6 more words than you ever post on Facebook ;-) Ian On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:57 PM, David Morey david...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Hi all Interesting essay on experience and physicalism: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n18/galen-strawson/real-naturalism David M 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Hi DMB, Ian [had] replied: Agreed. Precisely ... dmb says: Dude, you've announced your agreement with one bland statement and totally ignored the rest. Why ask the question if you're just going to ignore the answer. Not ignoring, just proceeding carefully, progressively. You say agreement is bland. To me agreement is something positive worth noting, to pin a few static latches into the discourse, otherwise it's all shifting sands. Also, without any visible agreements, actual positions get ignored, perceived positions get misquoted (as straw men) and thrown back as misleading positions in ad-hominem arguments. (Half a dozen examples in this thread alone.) Also, far from verbose drivel I'm using economy of expression (As in Agreed. Precisely, as in Yes, emphatically, etc) to signal agreed points and not waste mail volume on the bland stuff so we can get to the meat. References to verbose drivel are another spurious straw man, directed at the person. Anyway, given that we agree, MOQ-ish intellectual discourse is more than GOF-SOMish intellectual discourse, I will return to some of the suggested answers, Arlo's and yours (and anyone else, before I do ?). Ian 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
DMB, Arlo et al, After I had said to Arlo ... Rather than working the definition of SOMism to death, I'm asking what does MoQish expression and argument have, that distinguishes it from SOMist expression and argument. dmb said: I think it's quite clear that there are all kinds of ways to describe intellectual quality WITHOUT getting it mixed up with SOM. Ian says - Agreed. Precisely what I've been saying for more years than I care to remember. To avoid the (unnecessary) mixing up, to avoid (unnecessarily) working the SOMism to death, let's disentangle any (low quality) narrow, GOF-SOMist-intellectual discourse from a wider (high quality, enlightened, extended) MoQ-ish-intellectual discourse - by expressing what more does the latter comprise, that makes it higher quality than the former. (And again, just to be clear, to recap, it's the discourse - the expression and argument - I'm talking about, not the underlying metaphysics, where I think we're all clear on MoQ-101, the primary S/O vs primary Q/DQ distinction.) Ian 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
David, You ask, Why not say that ? Because it's trivially true, a given from our MoQish perspective, (nothing contentious as I already said) not the point I was making. I was actually adding another point in a conversation with Arlo. So, starting from your point: DJH - When we talk about ideas our cultural patterns also play a role in their expression. Absolutely. And my point was (is) one aspect of those patterns we use in our expressions of ideas (and in interpreting the expressions of others) is our culturally conditioned understanding of what gives that expression intellectual value. (Arlo has started to talk about that value in terms of coherence continuing in a reply to Arlo) Ian On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:35 PM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote: [Ian] So this is my point - we (radically) experience different levels of coherence consonance / dissonance psychologist might say - but when we objectify them enough to describe, define and argue about them, we bring a model of coherence to that argumentation. [djh] Ian, why not just say that - We experience different levels of quality because of our varied cultural patterns. When we talk about ideas our cultural patterns also play a role in their expression.? Ironically your words seem very incoherent and are causing confusion. We have a shared culture and language here of the MOQ. Please use it. 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Hi Arlo, Hmm, this is just widening again. I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to coherence, I pointed out I found the MoQ totally / highly coherent, but its expression less so and suggested we'd need a working definition (*) of coherence to make progress, and you definition of coherence adds a dozen new concepts (from Merriam-Webster) to our conversation. I'll try to respond to (some of) it in the following: Let's try this Man is a wolf Is a coherent statement, you say. Linguistically it's a coherent expression, meeting the rules of grammar, sure. An integrated whole, with subject, verb object, etc ... but the world pattern being described, must be metaphorical on at least one level - maybe Phaedrus should really have been Lycius kinda level ? (Maybe even a koan quote your favourite could be just as coherent?) Your definition of coherence in this value of the expression of intellectual patterns context, includes poetics. That's good. And you say definition is not a part of it. That's good. It's a broad definition, one that accepts that objective definitions of man, wolf, Phaedrus and Lycius, and even to be are not critical to its value. That's good too. Given shared experiences, intent and knowledge, coherent communication can depend on only the merest allusions. How true. So using Pirsig's economy of expression, given this broad enlightened, MoQish take on intellect (that we share, naturally) SOMism must be some narrower set of patterns within the intellectual (and social) level(s). So back to my topic: As working definitions (*) what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa). (*) As you know, I'm not big (we're not big, it seems) on value being dependent on definitions, in any tight, objective, reductionist, essential sense, so the only reason for a definition is to distinguish terms in the context of a current conversation. Working - the current task in hand. We're back on topic. Ian On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] So Arlo, your working definition of coherence has noting to do with being definable... [Arlo] I can't define Beethoven's 9th Symphony, or Cezanne's Pines and Rocks (Fontainebleau?), but I'd consider them coherent patterns. I can't reduce man is a wolf to a 'scientistic' statement/definition, but its a coherent pattern. From Merriam-Webster: Coherence: systematic or logical connection or consistency : integration of diverse elements, relationships, or values Definable: able to be defined (to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of) : able to be specified to have a particular function or operation Pirsig holds Dynamic Quality to be indefinable, and yet states, The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these. (LILA) Metaphysics with an indefinable central term, yet still coherent. 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Weird Arlo, So even as I restate my explicit question ... As working definitions what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa). (You not only meta-debate the history how we came to be talking about coherence, you pursue the why definition debate further, despite me elaborating how this was not a big deal for me, after you'd said it was not about definitions for you either. I'm not denying any of this, anywhere, just summarising whilst trying to focus. I'm going to have to start tagging my mails with [main], [meta] and [aside].) Ian On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:03 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to coherence... [Arlo] ?? This entire topic was generated by 'coherence'. Our off-line posts were about 'coherence'. Even as you brought it back on-line, you asked: [Ian previously] Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? [Arlo] And now I'm 'switching us' to coherence? Ian, my advice to you is to really articulate exactly what you mean and what you want. [Ian] As working definitions (*) what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa). [Arlo] As I said earlier, SOMist refers to a view that holds subjects and objects as primary. So, what distinguishes 'SOMist intellect' from 'MOQish intellect' is the in the former there are pre-experiential 'objects' and in the latter there are patterns of value that derive from the experiential moment. This relates to Paul's context one. Coming into 'MOQish intellect' from this epistemological position, we are able to 'ontologically' consider intellectual patterns to be pragmatic high quality explanations of how the world operates in accordance with the assumption that values are the ubiquitous, empirical element of an evolving universe. If you're able to read 'working' into that, fine, as long as the rest of the meaning is not lost. [Ian] ...so the only reason for a definition is to distinguish terms in the context of a current conversation ... [Arlo] Disagree. The purpose of 'definition' is to move us towards 'high quality explanations'. Sure, part of this is communication, but another part is evaluative. Its not just that I am trying to communicate with you, I'm making evaluations. I can tell you that I 'define' Quality as 'the absence of Quality', and you'll know what I 'mean' when I use that term, but importantly this definition allows for my ideas to be evaluated. 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
OK, so another re-start. [main] I want to talk about the intellectual level (in the title); such as working definitions of intellect and intellectual quality; and in particular what MoQ adds to intellect - a question I've expressed economically as What distinguishes MoQ-enlightened-intellect from GOF-SOMist-intellect? [/main] [rhetorical question only] Anyone any doubt as to the question / topic ? [/] [rhetorical answer only] Maybe it's tempting to answer quality or DQ. OK, true, but since these are undefined I was hoping maybe some practical working / example answers of what is or isn't included in the distinction. [/] [aside] Yes, I brought in Arlo's suggestion that maybe coherence was the issue, and yes I brought it in in the first mail - because as I suggested in the first line of the first mail, it often appears post-Bo that talking about intellect directly is taboo, so I was providing an opening, by saying OK, let's try starting from Arlo's statement on coherence and see if it helps. After a couple of offline exchanges, I continues with coherence in focus, shifting to questions of what constitutes / defines coherence, even though I'm not a big fan of objective definitions beyond the working context. The main question / topic is not changed by any of this - these simply reflect possible avenues to approach the main topic / question. [/aside] Ian On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: Weird Arlo, So even as I restate my explicit question ... As working definitions what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa). (You not only meta-debate the history how we came to be talking about coherence, you pursue the why definition debate further, despite me elaborating how this was not a big deal for me, after you'd said it was not about definitions for you either. I'm not denying any of this, anywhere, just summarising whilst trying to focus. I'm going to have to start tagging my mails with [main], [meta] and [aside].) Ian On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:03 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to coherence... [Arlo] ?? This entire topic was generated by 'coherence'. Our off-line posts were about 'coherence'. Even as you brought it back on-line, you asked: [Ian previously] Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? [Arlo] And now I'm 'switching us' to coherence? Ian, my advice to you is to really articulate exactly what you mean and what you want. [Ian] As working definitions (*) what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa). [Arlo] As I said earlier, SOMist refers to a view that holds subjects and objects as primary. So, what distinguishes 'SOMist intellect' from 'MOQish intellect' is the in the former there are pre-experiential 'objects' and in the latter there are patterns of value that derive from the experiential moment. This relates to Paul's context one. Coming into 'MOQish intellect' from this epistemological position, we are able to 'ontologically' consider intellectual patterns to be pragmatic high quality explanations of how the world operates in accordance with the assumption that values are the ubiquitous, empirical element of an evolving universe. If you're able to read 'working' into that, fine, as long as the rest of the meaning is not lost. [Ian] ...so the only reason for a definition is to distinguish terms in the context of a current conversation ... [Arlo] Disagree. The purpose of 'definition' is to move us towards 'high quality explanations'. Sure, part of this is communication, but another part is evaluative. Its not just that I am trying to communicate with you, I'm making evaluations. I can tell you that I 'define' Quality as 'the absence of Quality', and you'll know what I 'mean' when I use that term, but importantly this definition allows for my ideas to be evaluated. 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Arlo, you said. SOMist refers to a view that holds subjects and objects as primary. So, what distinguishes 'SOMist intellect' from 'MOQish intellect' is the in the former there are pre-experiential 'objects' and in the latter there are patterns of value that derive from the experiential moment. GOF-SOMist-intellect: subjects and objects are primary MOQ-enlightened-intellect: Quality is primary [IG] Yes. Metaphysically. Definitively. MoQ-101. But that's true of SOMism and MOQism generally, not just intellect and not just intellectual expression and argumentation. So what I asked was working definitions or examples that would illustrate that distinction in how such intellect was used, in discussion, argument, expression. So indeed, you go on to statements GOF-SOMist-intellect: statements are descriptions of reality [IG] Descriptions? OK. But descriptions of reality from the premise that subjects and objects are primary, so in some sense they are low-quality, or incomplete, descriptions of reality to a MoQist ? MOQ-enlightened-intellect: statements are pragmatic high quality explanations [IG] So, as predicted high-quality features highly in your definition, albeit pragmatically. We've been here many times before. Who could/would disagree. This just seems to take us back full circle to definitional problems of what is good pragmatically. I was asking for examples of what would a pragmatic high-quality argument look like, in contrast to a merely SOMist description. The problem is, to go all the way back to the beginning, is that you want to equate 'coherence' with 'objectivist/scientistic/SOMist' (along with definitional and logical), and this is a misuse of the term SOM. [IG] (Z STOP effing accusing the person!) No. I don't want to equate coherence with anything here unless you do. Clearly judging any standard of coherence depends on the patterns of value held, so it's going to be related, but I don't have some prior definition that is privileged here. I repeat I only used it as a topic because you introduced the straw-man that somehow I claimed incoherence was a necessary component (of MoQ-enlightened-intellectual expression). What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine) is that objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege well-defined subjects and objects and well defined relations between these and is a feature of SOMist intellectual expression and argument. Pragmatically, MoQish argumentation also uses these, but it is MORE THAN these. Ian 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Excellent Arlo, Thanks for the persistence, I think we've got somewhere.
Let's work bottom-up.
Yes, I understood why you introduced coherence, hence saw it as
worthwhile to maybe switch to that for a while. Notwithstanding the
definition of coherence itself, it did also throw up this question
(implication) that coherence of an argument or expression requires
that the objects and relations involved also have good definitions
(or not). As you say, worth keeping in mind, since we are likely to
bump up against this question further.
Including well-defined in that suggested statement? Yes, I did in
fact add it for emphasis, and in a strict sense, yes it is probably
redundant to the intended logic. OK.
Now, I'm not deliberately equating SOMism with objective
definitions, but even in your re-statement includes objective,
scientistic, definitional logic is a feature of SOMist
intellectual expression - so clearly there is a strong relation /
dependency between subjects / objects / relations having logically
workable definitions, and SOMism.
I just add back as a question the final clause that you snipped out
following that:
Pragmatically, MoQish argumentation also uses these, but it is MORE
THAN these?
With the same MORE THAN emphasised. Rather than working the definition
of SOMism to death, I'm asking what does MoQish expression and
argument have, that distinguishes it from SOMist expression and
argument.
Ian
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Ian]
What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine)is that
objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege
well-defined subjects and objects and well defined relations between these
and is a feature of SOMist intellectual expression and argument.
Pragmatically, MoQish argumentation also uses these, but it is MORE THAN
these.
[Arlo]
What value does inserting well defined into this statement serve? If I
restate it without, it appears to make more sense.
{Arlo restates]
What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine)is that
objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege
subjects and objects and relations between these and is a feature of SOMist
intellectual expression and argument.
[Arlo continues]
I'll ask, since you find my 'accusations' unfair, is your inclusion of 'well
defined' meant to imply/suggest that 'well defined' equates with SOM? If
not, why add it? Can there be well defined non-SOMist/MOQish intellectual
patterns? (I suppose I should make a comment that do we need to differentiate
poorly defined (which is what I'd argue violates coherence) from
undefined (which, as I mentioned, does not suggest incoherence), but maybe
that can be kept in mind.)
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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
To cut a long story short, we continued offline to get round the 4 posts a day rule: Arlo - Is Pirsig's MOQ coherent? Ian - Yes (The Metaphysics itself, emphatically, unequivocally, Yes). Ian - However the expression of his metaphysics (in his own words and those of the more expert readers) is less so. Arlo - What do you mean by less so? Ian - By less so, I'm saying it can never be entirely coherent. Some parts, very large parts, can be totally coherently expressed. Some parts can't, some must remain not amenable to totally coherent expression - in prosaic, logical language. Here poetic language gets closer, but can never overcome the actual gaps in coherence. Is a whole with parts with gaps in their coherence, incoherent? I'd say less than totally coherent. Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? Regards Ian On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] Hi Arlo, no thanks for not addressing the point ;-) but OK, inserted ... [Arlo] I didn't think you made a point that warranted addressing, apart from accusations of SOMist intellectual perspective that you hadn't defined. But, okay, let's see what kind of 'addressing' I can give this. [Ian] In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern. [Arlo] What is it you'd like me to address? You restated my evaluation of your posts to express what you think better states your position. Okay. First, I'd say you remain 'stuck' in viewing intellectual qualities like coherence and precision as 'dogma' or 'SOMist', and you seem to equate valid argumentation as something that 'restricts' intellectual quality. Given this, I am not sure what you THINK would evidence high quality intellectual patterns, but I would still evaluate your position has stuck in intellect=SOM. This is why I jumped to your other point. Since you equate 'coherence' and (now) 'valid argumentation' as SOMist (and over several recent emails, as I pointed out), rather than as exemplars of high quality intellectual patterns, I asked what you consider to be 'non-SOMist' intellectual patterns. In other words, by regressing dogma back to even include a concept like coherence, you're moving into the same sort of vacuous nihilism that the MOQ argues against. And I guess this hinges on this question. Coherence is an intellectual pattern, but is it an SOMist intellectual pattern? If so, are you suggesting we redefine 'coherence', and how? Or, are you suggesting that incoherent intellectual patterns are what the MOQ offers to counter SOMist intellect? Or...? 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
So Arlo, your working definition of coherence has noting to do with being definable carry on, anyone. Ian (BTW my topic was / is the intellectual level - but happy to continue on coherence for now. I'm not doing any reducing - quite the opposite.) On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? [Arlo] As I mentioned off-line, but will restate here. 'Coherence' has nothing to do with 'undefined' or 'indefinable'. That DQ is not defined in the MOQ is not a sign of 'incoherence'. That it requires 'poetics' to get at it is not a sign of 'incoherence'. All you doing with this is reducing 'coherence' to 'objectivist/scientistic/SOMist', which is the SOURCE OF YOUR ERROR in the first place. 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
[MD] The Intellectual Level
Arlo, OK, as Marsha says, the problem we're having is that debating the intellectual level has become taboo, and turned into an excuse to trade personal insults. Let's try and build from the following example: ARLO said to Ian: Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns. Seem - is progress. Better than actually accusing me (personally) of incoherence. Even better might be to ask me if / what I do actually think. I'll continue as if you did. PREAMBLE (Obviously) I know that's what you think (Arlo and the other intellectual bulldogs) - that's why this is an ongoing difficulty. We need to address it. I have addressed little else for ten years (obviously). (Also let me put one item aside briefly - I said this (MD) is a conversation, not a logical argument - that is, it contains level upon level of rhetoric of every kind, by every participant, across every time-scale. I'm simply stating a fact.) So back to the point. Do I believe in-coherence is a necessary part of / step towards quality understanding and knowledge ? (Aside - I do believe it's necessary to experience different levels of incoherence in order to understand coherence - so an educational step maybe - but not an aim or objective to be incoherent. Though this is never a point I'm trying to make - more / wider experience is good. full stop. Incoherence is simply part of life's rich tapestry. Non contentious. No point to make here.) THIS IS THE POINT I do believe it's necessary to honestly recognise that judgements of how coherent something is does depend on our intellectual model of coherence. So, to rephrase your seem sentence: Ian says - In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern. [Address just that statement without second-guessing what Ian seems to believe - or the quality of Ian's character - and maybe we can move on to questions of SOMist and MoQish intellect ] Ian 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Ho Horse, I didn't say you had, I agreed effectively it had become taboo. Discussion of the intellectual level does involve discussing S/O and related intellect ideas - unavoidable. (As I've said before at root, Bo actually had a point - he just didn't necessarily have the right solution or argument to achieve any agreement. For a while I gave him the benefit of the doubt with English as his second language, but eventually, like you I had to agree he wouldn't or couldn't actually listen to reasonable arguments.) The real irony is that those who defend intellectual quality do seem to do it from a SOMist intellectual perspective - which is making discussion of alternatives incredibly fractious. But I'm not a quitter. Hence this thread. Ian On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote: Hang on a second - at no point have I said that debating the Intellectual level is taboo. I have never said anything like that - EVER! What I have said is that the ridiculous idea that the Intellectual level is the S/O level, as per Bo's nonsense, is not something that needs any further discussion - so drop it! We've been over this idea, ad nauseam, for years and as far as I'm concerned it's a blind alley (and total shite) and I don't want any more time and bandwidth wasted on it. It's very simple. Discussion of the Intellectual level, as per Pirsig, is an entirely legitimate and reasonable topic of discussion for MD. Are there really people on this list who are too stupid to understand the difference or is it just, as I suspect, another means of skirting around issues that those that don't see the difference (i.e. really are that stupid) use to justify their own stupidity. Using this nonsense as an evasive tactic is dishonest and intellectual cowardice. I'll put it very clearly: Discussion of Intellectual level as per Robert Pirsig's ideas and writing is OK. Discussion of Bo's Intellect = S/O and related ideas is NOT OK Is this simple enough for everyone? Horse On 15/08/2013 10:53, Ian Glendinning wrote: Arlo, OK, as Marsha says, the problem we're having is that debating the intellectual level has become taboo, and turned into an excuse to trade personal insults. Let's try and build from the following example: -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Hi David, Thanks for addressing the actual point. inserted On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote: Ian, You make a couple of claims which argue from a standpoint that ideas come *before* quality and coherence. [IG] I don't. Apart from that you don't say much I disagree with. This is ugly and for lack of a better word … has little coherence.. [Ian 1] I do believe it's necessary to experience different levels of incoherence in order to understand coherence - so an educational step maybe - but not an aim or objective to be incoherent I don't 'believe' this. I experience quality and coherence. This coherence exists before me or any ideas I have about it. See the difference? [IG] Of course. Me too. But that's this coherence, and is the point I was making. It's more subtle than the point that led to this thread, which was about coherence of arguments, of expressed ideas. I don't have to experience 'incoherence' to know what coherence is. Some ideas are just more coherent than others.. Those ideas which are low on the scale of coherence - we call low quality and those which are high on the scale we call high quality.. [IG] Agreed. [Ian 2] I do believe it's necessary to honestly recognise that judgements of how coherent something is does depend on our intellectual model of coherence. Couldn't disagree more. This is more idealism. Certainly our ideas of how coherent something is depends on the culture from which we are from. [IG] Agreed. It was this kind of coherence of ideas expressed that we were discussing. But what's fundamental isn't the ideas or the culture but the quality which creates all things including these ideas and cultures. This 'coherence' is before *both* our ideas about it. So it's not just a matter of opinion - but a universal quality before all things. [IG] Agreed. Fundamental to our Pirsigian view anyway. So this is my point - we (radically) experience different levels of coherence consonance / dissonance psychologist might say - but when we objectify them enough to describe, define and argue about them, we bring a model of coherence to that argumentation. [Like quality and intellect, the deeper concept of coherence, has broad and narrow working definitions once we make them the topic of conversation - I'd rather in the context of this thread maybe drop back to considering the quality of idea-manipulation by intellect. This was the coherence being criticised.] 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Hi Arlo, no thanks for not addressing the point ;-) but OK, inserted ... On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:12 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] The real irony is that those who defend intellectual quality do seem to do it from a SOMist intellectual perspective... [Arlo] Who. [IG] You for example would be as good as any - the thread was addressed to you (in response to what you were quoted as saying to me) But most remaining participants - given that most who disagree are slowly unsubscribing. But let's stick to the point. And on what basis do you interpret an SOMist intellectual perspective. And, how would that contrast, in your opinion, with a nonSOMist intellectual perspective. [IG] Hold your horses. That's going to get knotty with some working definitions and understandings needed to approach anywhere near agreed understandings. I did say address the point actually made, before moving on to this. Need a reminder? THIS IS THE POINT (after the preamble) ... so, to rephrase your seem sentence: Ian says - In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern. 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
Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level
Hi Horse (post 5 or so ?) OK. (I do disagree with your interpretation of what Marsha is trying to achieve, but that is not the point of this thread. I started afresh so we could discuss it.) But, let's stick to the point (of this thread). Ian On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote: And this is the point I'm making. You said and agreed with: ... as Marsha says, the problem we're having is that debating the intellectual level has become taboo ... which is a complete red herring! There isn't and never has been a problem with discussion of the Intellectual level on MD. It's when the Intellectual level is equated with Bo's gibberish about the Intellect being the S/O level nonsense (which Marsha has been shown to agree with in her own words) that it becomes a problem. So it's entirely bogus to suggest that discussing the Intellectual level has become taboo. Marsha is currently using this line to avoid entering into debate. She has done this several times in the past as a means of deflecting criticism and has been pulled up each time but still continues to churn out the same nonsense. SOM, as a metaphysical system, exists at the Intellectual level and is encompassed by Intellect so, again there is no problem with SOM or the S/O divide etc. etc. being discussed. This is all spurious nonsense that Marsha is aware of but insists on repeating, time and time again, in order to avoid any meaningful dialogue. Horse On 15/08/2013 11:41, Ian Glendinning wrote: Ho Horse, I didn't say you had, I agreed effectively it had become taboo. Discussion of the intellectual level does involve discussing S/O and related intellect ideas - unavoidable. (As I've said before at root, Bo actually had a point - he just didn't necessarily have the right solution or argument to achieve any agreement. For a while I gave him the benefit of the doubt with English as his second language, but eventually, like you I had to agree he wouldn't or couldn't actually listen to reasonable arguments.) The real irony is that those who defend intellectual quality do seem to do it from a SOMist intellectual perspective - which is making discussion of alternatives incredibly fractious. But I'm not a quitter. Hence this thread. Ian On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote: Hang on a second - at no point have I said that debating the Intellectual level is taboo. I have never said anything like that - EVER! What I have said is that the ridiculous idea that the Intellectual level is the S/O level, as per Bo's nonsense, is not something that needs any further discussion - so drop it! We've been over this idea, ad nauseam, for years and as far as I'm concerned it's a blind alley (and total shite) and I don't want any more time and bandwidth wasted on it. It's very simple. Discussion of the Intellectual level, as per Pirsig, is an entirely legitimate and reasonable topic of discussion for MD. Are there really people on this list who are too stupid to understand the difference or is it just, as I suspect, another means of skirting around issues that those that don't see the difference (i.e. really are that stupid) use to justify their own stupidity. Using this nonsense as an evasive tactic is dishonest and intellectual cowardice. I'll put it very clearly: Discussion of Intellectual level as per Robert Pirsig's ideas and writing is OK. Discussion of Bo's Intellect = S/O and related ideas is NOT OK Is this simple enough for everyone? Horse On 15/08/2013 10:53, Ian Glendinning wrote: Arlo, OK, as Marsha says, the problem we're having is that debating the intellectual level has become taboo, and turned into an excuse to trade personal insults. Let's try and build from the following example: -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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 -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Japanese Ingenuity -- Save your plastic
Hi Marsha, The innovation is educational, and high quality because it is real, constructed and operated with his own hands understanding the underlying processes, and able to be physically shown to new audiences. The real recycle potential in the waste plastic is made empirically evident. Quality. Eco-engineering-wise it is flawed and not novel (I was doing this on the kitchen stove 45 years ago). It is very unlikely this is ecologically cost effective at this scale with random plastic feedstock. Questions of efficiencies of the heat source and the process, and emissions of hydrocarbon (and other) gases as well as the condensate, the need for post processing if you want to do more than burn it smokily and inefficiently, health and safety, and more. Pyrolysis plants work on an industrial scale, where the efficiencies and secondary processes can be managed. So it's good to educate people with their own eyes and hands that recycling is worth pursuing because it really works, but flawed to suggest private self-sufficient processing as the answer. Ian On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Greetings, I am not in a position to respond to the efficiency and feasibility of the project. You may all know more than me on this topic. It is innovative and might be a good way to recycle our piles of plastic refuse. I heard, not to long ago, that most of our recyclables are still dumped in landfills or in the ocean. I was also impressed with what drove him to such a solution. It was caring. Marsha 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
Re: [MD] Joa Sarno, Quality Filmmaker who at last won some celebrity
Jan Anders, I've not watched the film (yet) - so no opinion - but who says celebrity is higher quality than money ? I think you'll find Pirsig shunned celebrity and bought a big ocean-going yacht with his royalties ;-) Ian On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Hi all Here is a film you can watch on the net for one month about Joe Sarno who devoted his life to Quality films before making profit, about human desire for each other. At the end of the movie there is an excellent scene where Peggy proudly shows evidence for celebrity, it's more worth than money she says. http://www.svtplay.se/video/1390276/sarnos Hope some of you enjoy it. Jan-Anders 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
Re: [MD] Mixed up, My Dear
Hmmm, OK Arlo, in that sentence I put the Context 2 as an afterthought in parenthesis after those words - you could maybe read it that way - but my point is you know I have a broader of view of how we should interpret intellect. I couldn't possibly have meant that interpretation, given the years of exchanges gone before. The point I keep reiterating is one of respect, if you think I said something that sounded that it could be wrongly interpreted, suggest a correction to the specific words, it's an email conversation after all. Don't (as maybe dmb did rather than you?) build an argument against the person. Let me try to rephrase that one phrase as intended. Not allowing a narrow, SOMist, Context 2 view to dominate. (ie a broader Context 2 view of course uses subjects and objects in its intellectual description, but non-exclusively, it acknowledges there is a wider view from both contexts, where intellect can - and should - be defined as more than SOMism. Which if I recall in paraphrase is what DMB goes on to say, and why I said we agree already.) The only other point I added in the mail being referred to was simply to remind us all that defining this intellect more than SOMism remains an open issue post-Bo, but it's existence as the intellect we are talking about is not in doubt. (Plenty of previous examples of being open a to a range of possible ways to describe that MOQish-Intellect ) Ian On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:46 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] Just to be absolutely clear: I don't say Context 2 is narrow SOM. [Arlo] Just to be absolutely clear: Yeah, Ian, you did. [Ian previously] ... not allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) view of intellect to dominate... [Arlo] Maybe this is just sloppy rhetoric or sloppy thinking on your part, or maybe you have Context-2 turrets where just interject that phrase randomly and without meaning into your sentences, but this actually demonstrates the reason why clarity and coherence in thought and argument (intellectual quality) is so important. 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
Re: [MD] Mixed up, My Dear
Just to be absolutely clear: I don't say Context 2 is narrow SOM. I say some people take a too narrow SOM view of Context 2. As usual, we're actually agreeing. Ian On 8 Aug 2013 20:55, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Arlo said to Adrie: ...Mostly, I think I agree with Paul, but am rather saddened by how this paper has been used, either with Ian's statement that context two is narrow SOM, or David's insistence that these contexts are Dynamic/east and static/west. I think the biggest source of my frustration is that Pirsig's ideas form a coherent whole, that these views, or voices, reflecting epistemological and ontological (which is Paul's distinction, and one I support) positions, and do not represent two 'separate but valid interpretations' of the MOQ, but that when they are combined as phases form a coherent whole that enacts a major expansion and evolution of the modern Western mythos. dmb says: Exactly. Instead of understanding the MOQ's central distinction WITHIN a unified and coherent picture, it is misconstrued in various ways to produce two opposed interpretations. Instead of trying to strike a balance between the static and the Dynamic, there is this bogus battle wherein static quality is denigrated in favor of pure flux. According to this bogus view, static values, especially intellectual values, are regarded as an impediment to be killed, as a prison to be destroyed and as an illusion to eliminated. If I understand what Paul is saying about the second context, those who hold the bogus view are basically just rejecting the ontological structure of the MOQ. They don't just put DQ at the center of this static structure, they misconstrue its centrality to oppose the static structure. But, as Pirsig says repeatedly, in both ZAMM and LILA, both are absolutely necessary. “Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other.” (LILA, p.121) To say, as Pirsig does, that truth is a static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality, is a simple and elegant way to say that truths exists in a relation to DQ. More specifically, it's a clean and neat way to say that intellectual truths are subordinate to DQ. This second context, this static structure, already has DQ built right into it. These are not two separate interpretations or two separate ways of looking at the MOQ. Static and Dynamic are the central terms. They represent the first and most important distinction of the MOQ. It's a hell of thing to get wrong being many further mistakes will inevitably follow from such a blunder. It's not exactly trivial or nit-picky, you know? These two elements are suppose to work together in a coherent picture. Contrary to Marsha's anti-intellectualist readings, Pirsig explains what it means to kill static intellectual patterns just a few pages later... Zen monks' daily life is nothing but on ritual after another. Hour after hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those static patterns to discover the unwritten Dharma, they want him to get those patterns perfect. The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you MASTER them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found. And he was saying the same thing about structure and freedom back in ZAMM too. It's the key to his central metaphor - motorcycle maintenance - and to any other kind of fixing. Intellectual static patterns are NOT the enemy of creativity. Quite the opposite. They're not enough all by themselves but they are necessary. If you want to build a factory [or an argument], or fix a motorcycle, or set a nation right without getting stuck, then classical, structured, dualistic subject-object knowledge, although necessary, isn’t enough. You have to have some feeling for the quality of the work. You have to have a sense of what’s good. That is what carries you forward. This sense isn’t just something you’re born with, although you are born with it. It’s also something you can develop. It’s not just ‘intuition,’ not just unexplainable ‘skill’ or ‘talent.’ It’s the direct result of
Re: [MD] kill all intellectual patterns
That was hillarious. Made my week Marsha. Ian. On 8 Aug 2013 18:39, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:54 PM, david buchanan wrote: Marsha said: Does that second premise hold? 1. Marsha posts the quote Kill all intellectual patterns. 2. Kill all intellectual patterns. is an anti-intellectual statement. 3. Therefore, Marsha is an anti-intellectual. The basic structure of an argument is A = B B = C Therefore, A = C Where the premises can be checked, and it can be seen that the conclusion, indeed, follows from the premises. You bet, dmb, I have no interest in addressing your general and nebulous complaints and criticisms. dmb, Oh my, the argument was a bit of a parody, didn't you recognize it? dmb says: The second premise is false (and the first premise isn't really a premise). If you're trying to formulate something like my argument, the first and second premise should be combined. 1. Marsha mistakenly posts the quote, kill all intellectual patterns, AS IF it were an anti-intellectual statement. Yes, that's right. It is an unwarranted premise. 2. The quote, taken in context, is not an anti-intellectual statement but rather a statement about the perfection and mastery of intellectual static quality for the purpose of raising rationality to art form. I didn't really take the second premise to be true. That was why I raised the question in the second post. I see the statement to Kill all Intellectual patterns is a reference to mediation/mindfulness, a statement I've made many times, where the conceptual (language) portion of mind is dropped. 3. Marsha has misunderstood the quote and thereby come to a bogus, anti-intellect conclusion. No, just like you so often do, I replaced logic with parody. It was like your little OZ parody, but nearly as creative or mean-spirited. But of course syllogistic logic is a very ancient and very simple form. It's an indifferent, trivial little machine that does no real work. Garbage in, garbage out. And garbage in, garbage out is what I find your specific criticisms to be, unwarranted accusations. And why I wrote to Ant that I can accept that dmb has different value judgements than mine as a result of our different histories and current patterns of values. And why yesterday I wrote to you I'm not buying your rhetoric. ... I am not here to accept your interpretations, opinions and judgements [concerning the MoQ] as Holy Writ. I'll leave you to be as you are, and be with you own thoughts. And why I say to you now: Your thoughts are your own: they're not me, they are not mine. And I'd bet big bucks that logic has nothing to do with it because, for you, anti-intellectualism is always your premise AND your conclusion. Whether you'd bet big bucks or not, that statement is unwarranted. More dmb blarney. There is no thinking or reading or interpreting involved in reaching your position. You seem to take whatever flits through your mind as fact. That's a form of psychological naive realism. And your words represent empty rhetoric. It's just an attitude for which you invent a whole series of incoherent rationalizations. You have no actual arguments. More unwarranted statements. Do you expect me to respond to your baloney. - Why not let go of Marsha? You claim that you want the MD to promote philosophical discussion, but they seem to be beyond your ability to initiate. Marsha ___ 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
Re: [MD] The Two Contexts of the MOQ
Hi DMB, and in that first para, you in fact agree with what I suggested. The intended follow-up was to debate the standards of intelligent intellectual philosophical debate in our MoQ context, you start to do so by listing contributions you consider valid. Progress. So clearly not a strawman. You don't need the anti-intellectual slogans response. As I have said when you see those, you are seeing a reaction to the narrow Context 2 view of intellect attempting to dominate Context 1 - a defensive reaction against the dominant ideology, as I also said. As Paul (and Levi Bryant) pointed out, neither view is awarded priority, and the defensive actions would be unnecessary if the dominant ideology simply recognised that it was. Again, as said many times, it's never been a matter of being anti-intellectual - simply a matter of restoring a balance of intellectual views across the contexts, not allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) view of intellect to dominate. Hence the reason the Bo debate keeps resurfacing. Bo had a point, he was barred for ignoring argumentation about his point. Ian On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Ian wrote: ...Yes it's a philosophy discussion group - but it is not a discussion group necessarily confined by the standards of existing philosophical academe. Arlo said to Ian: Well, no one's expecting abstracts and reference lists. And we're fairly lax about inline citations. And I don't remember the last time I saw a post critiqued for not abiding by the APA or MLA Style Guides. And, I'm fairly certain we don't begrudge posts that violate the structure of how most academic articles and papers are written.But since when did coherence and logic, and articulating well-thought out positions become something that 'confined' a forum dedicated to philosophy? I am currently going back over Granger's book, and its pretty evident that he spent a lot of time and care building something both artistic and coherent, something that abides by the most basic intellectual qualities. These are GOOD things. ... dmb says: Right, Ian's point certainly smells like a straw man to me. No problem with Owen Barfield and Levi Bryant's speculative realism is fine. No complaints about academe when talking about Dawkins' memes either or, in Marsha's case, any number of Buddhist scholars. But a long list of anti-intellectual slogans are arbitrarily trotted out whenever it's convenient for them. Not only is this anti-academic attitude inconsistently applied to Nietzsche, James, Dewey, Stuhr, Seigfried, Granger, Hildebrand or any academic pragmatist I've cited in this forum, these guys will even use this anti-intellectual stance to dismiss Pirsig quotes! This use of anti-intellectualism is not just incorrect, arbitrary, inconsistent, and incoherent, it's not even honest. I think it's self-srving nonsense and it's downright obscene. Arlo said to dmb: As I see it, both are active all of the time. We should not be in context one or in context two, but we should be in context talking about the value of Quality in both lights.For example, even though Pirsig would say the motorcycle-as-object as no primary reality, I think he'd say that if you were going to ride it, then taking the time to maintain it well, to understand it, to take the the time to do it good. I think the same can be said of philosophy. No one is arguing for scientific objectivism (this is absurd), arguing for intellectual quality is NOT arguing for 'reificiation' or subject-object primacy, or any such thing. Philosophy is just like that motorcycle. No one is making you ride it. No one is making you maintain it. But if you choose to ride, and if you choose to do the maintenance, then I think it will carry you further if you take the time to do it right. Just jumping onto a motorcycle and repeating this motorcycle is an illusion, and calling th e people discussing repair and maintenance static or context two is a fool's journey. dmb says: Exactly right, I think. The motorcycle is a system of concepts worked out in steel and Pirsig's stance toward philosophy is just like that. We can acknowledge the fact that both are humanly constructed, acknowledge the highly plastic nature of these creations, and deny there status as a primary reality. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the bike parts are all in working order. That is irrelevant to the precise way that the MOQ's concepts all fit together to make one coherent whole. In either case, that's what maintenance work is all about. How is it possible to converse with anyone who thinks that Pirsig rejects basic standards like clarity and precision? Isn't it just absurd to suppose that excellence in thought and speech can be achieved without such things? I think Ian's point has no merit whatsoever and in fact reveals a very extreme and
Re: [MD] Marsha My Dear
OK Arlo, On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 4:52 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Ian] I've tried and get roundly shouted down by the baying mob of Pirsig bulldogs. [Arlo] For someone who cries straw man with almost every post, you sure seem to rely on them a lot. so instead of arm-waving, please point out one straw-man in my post ? The point of those that appear in the eye of the beholder - is to expose to a point that needs unpicking. So let's do it. 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
Re: [MD] Marsha My Dear
Hi Ant, On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Many thanks for that Ian but DMB is essentially making a very good point about the intellectual quality (or lack of) at this Discussion group. [IG] Me too, or do you disagree ? Otherwise, the title of this thread is just a pun on the Beatles song Martha My Dear. You may want to smoke a big joint one day and listen carefully to the album it's derived from (THE WHITE ALBUM). You might just enjoy it. [IG] Ant, My Dear, now that IS patronising ! ;-) In the meantime, take care and best of luck, [IG] You too. Ant. Ian Glendinning stated August 2nd 2013: With Ant having defused the DMB response with humour perhaps we could get back to the point. I too winced a little at the rather patronising Marsha My Dear headline, but hey, it's really tough to make a difficult point on this forum these days, a point that doesn't fit the accepted MD ideology - and you have to start somewhere. Well done Ant for making the effort. I've tried and get roundly shouted down by the baying mob of Pirsig bulldogs. The point is balance. Any evolutionary ecosystem, any democracy, needs to defend it's minority interests. Most shocking was Dan's what difference does it make ... line. [shakes head] Pirsig and them pesky redskins working title for Lila - hello? Even after we've had Paul pointing out the two contexts within the MoQ we still get one shouting down the other. If we can't handle that gawd 'elp us add with every gender / national / racial / cultural / cognitive-style / metaphysical perspective variation. Nice try Ant, and thanks for being a sport Marsha, we know you don't actually need our help, but when Khoo left in the circumstances he did, I really hoped the bulldogs might have had an epiphany. . 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
Re: [MD] Marsha My Dear
With Ant having defused the DMB response with humour perhaps we could get back to the point. I too winced a little at the rather patronising Marsha My Dear headline, but hey, it's really tough to make a difficult point on this forum these days, a point that doesn't fit the accepted MD ideology - and you have to start somewhere. Well done Ant for making the effort. I've tried and get roundly shouted down by the baying mob of Pirsig bulldogs. The point is balance. Any evolutionary ecosystem, any democracy, needs to defend it's minority interests. Most shocking was Dan's what difference does it make ... line. [shakes head] Pirsig and them pesky redskins working title for Lila - hello? Even after we've had Paul pointing out the two contexts within the MoQ we still get one shouting down the other. If we can't handle that gawd 'elp us add with every gender / national / racial / cultural / cognitive-style / metaphysical perspective variation. Nice try Ant, and thanks for being a sport Marsha, we know you don't actually need our help, but when Khoo left in the circumstances he did, I really hoped the bulldogs might have had an epiphany. Ian 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
Re: [MD] Marsha My Dear
And specifically on Marsha being boring I've made the point before several times myself. Marsha sticks to her Buddhist guns like a cracked record, not because she's stuck in her ways, but because she's reacting to the scientistic ideologues stuck in / sticking to their ways. Nature. Until things change, I defend her right to do so. Ian On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote: With Ant having defused the DMB response with humour perhaps we could get back to the point. I too winced a little at the rather patronising Marsha My Dear headline, but hey, it's really tough to make a difficult point on this forum these days, a point that doesn't fit the accepted MD ideology - and you have to start somewhere. Well done Ant for making the effort. I've tried and get roundly shouted down by the baying mob of Pirsig bulldogs. The point is balance. Any evolutionary ecosystem, any democracy, needs to defend it's minority interests. Most shocking was Dan's what difference does it make ... line. [shakes head] Pirsig and them pesky redskins working title for Lila - hello? Even after we've had Paul pointing out the two contexts within the MoQ we still get one shouting down the other. If we can't handle that gawd 'elp us add with every gender / national / racial / cultural / cognitive-style / metaphysical perspective variation. Nice try Ant, and thanks for being a sport Marsha, we know you don't actually need our help, but when Khoo left in the circumstances he did, I really hoped the bulldogs might have had an epiphany. Ian 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
Re: [MD] The Two Contexts of the MOQ
Hi David (H), (David M mentioned) David H you reminded us of: The value of assuming things exist (before) we experience them. Apart from the hierarchical / privileged use of the word before I'd say spot on. Maybe I'd say as well as, at appropriate times, rather than simply before. This is of course the point of the onticology view of Levi Bryant, that David M has been drawing to our attention - objects (SPV's) exist democratically in the grand scheme, but neither view 1 or view 2 is privileged out of their context. You also said DMB and Marsha play a game of name-calling from either perspective. Possibly, but it takes two to tango. Sadly, you join in the name calling with Marsha fails etc ... Sure, Marsha sticks to her position, but not because she's stuck in her position, rather because she's in an unnecessary battle here on MD. It's a battle we're all involved in beyond MD, because the objective scientistic position (View 2) is the dominating ideology generally (after Zizek). The point of us persevering with promoting MoQ as a better alternative is precisely because it recognises both views and their radical empirical relationship - the battle is really unnecessary - just in-fighting - here one would hope. The Pain - When Will It End? Anyway, progress. Ian 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
