[MD] Test

[Ron Kulp]

Been having problems replying to posts, just a test.
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] What's wrong with "a personal God"?

[Ron Kulp]

"Some personalists are idealists, believing that reality is constituted by 
consciousness, while others claim to be realist philosophers and argue that the 
natural order is created by God independently of human consciousness. For 
taxonomic convenience, the many strains of personalism can be grouped into two 
fundamental categories: personalism in a strict sense and personalism in a 
broader sense. "-Stanford 

"As a philosophical school, personalism draws its foundations from human reason 
and experience, though historically personalism has nearly always been attached 
to Biblical theism. von Balthasar suggests that “Without the biblical 
background it [personalism] is inconceivable.” Yet while most personalists are 
theists, belief in God is not necessary to all personalist philosophies, and 
some profess an atheist personalism."-Stanford 

> On Mar 23, 2016, at 1:52 PM, John Carl  wrote:
> 
> John, I brought up the issue of Personalism a while back in MD, and
> honestly, before we get into what you mean by "God", I think we ought to
> talk about what we mean by "Personal".  I got interested in the discussion
> of Personalism in the general  way through reading Auxier's commentary on
> James's Personalism, which he (James) largely derived from Bowden Parker
> Bowne, if Auxier's correct (and he usually is ;)   It's a fascinating
> philosophical discussion and one that modernist-analytic philosophy (SOM)
> tends to ignore, being that it is a form of Idealism and god knows who we
> let in if we open THAT door
> 
> but on the other hand, without an account of the personal, all science;
> all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as "mind/body" and
> "Self/Other" logical problems.
> 
> before  we can personalize God, God must personalize us, or we have no
> basis for standing.  I believe this can be a rational process, but it MUST
> be a process.  That is, Personality is a story - a process in time.  The
> god of the bible is certainly that, first and foremost - IAM he that knew
> your fathers, that brought you out of the land of bondage, etc.  The person
> is rooted in history but the now is always a choice.
> 
> Thanks for continuing the conversation,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, John McConnell 
> wrote:
> 
>> Friends,
>> 
>> In a number of sources which otherwise affirm a spiritual reality or a
>> concept analogous to the way Christians conceive of God, most are vehement
>> in their denial a “personal God”, which most equate with an
>> “anthropomorphic” or “sectarian” God.  Although such may often be the case,
>> why, on the face of it, do scholars reject the notion of a “personal God”?
>> Why can’t God choose to be “personal”?  Why is the affirmation of a
>> “personal God” considered by MOQ fundamentalists to be a “limitation” or
>> “definition” of God?  How does being “personal” (not “personified”) violate
>> God’s the attributes of ineffable, indefinable, etc., ascribed to Dynamic
>> Quality?  What could be less “effable” and “definable” and “limited” than
>> the pure Essence of Being of Thomas Aquinas?  I’m really puzzled by this.
>> Can you help?
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John McConnell
>> 
>> Home:  407-857-2004
>> 
>> Cell:  407-867-2192
>> 
>> Email:   jlmcconn...@bellsouth.net
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "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] still going?

[Ron Kulp]

Adrie,
I wouldn't think it would hurt to become familiar with ideas we disagree with.

> On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Adrie Kintziger  wrote:
> 
> Yes, one of my biggest concerns is exactly the blending of  in of
> fallibilism
> as a key argument to maintain god's presence in the house of philosophy.
> It is true altogether that we cannot prove that god does not exist, hence
> he 'does 'exist or to say the least, fallibilism as a postulate (if
> accepted) allows
> the creator to stay on top of the pyramid.

Ron :
I never bought the fallibism argument either.
But if I were to make a philosophic argument for the existence of "god"
I certainly would not start with fallibilism.
I would start with "the good".
I would start with the idea that since
Experience is intelligible it must have some sort of order. That the act of 
understanding is the divine aspect of being.
Something you can argue intelligently



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] Two Minds

[Ron Kulp]

Austin,
Just to clarify your question, the concept of the levels is just that,
an intellectual construct to help clarify ideas about experience.
If we take them to be an evolutionary chronology in the "objective" sense,
We are going to run into some confusion regarding the topic.
-Ron 

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Austin Fatheree  wrote:
> 
> Jan,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm tracking on why the intellectual can't be beside the
> social.  There certainly are a number of intellectual structures that built
> on top of the social layer.  We can find many examples.  But to say that it
> has to be above, we must also find evidence of absence of intellectual
> constructions that are  independent of the social layer.  I'd put forth
> medicine as an example of an intellectual construction that operates
> independent of society.  Possibly at a lower level we can see machine
> engineering as intellectual activity that operates at the inorganic level.
> 
> I'm not arguing that the intellectual isn't above the social...only that it
> it isn't only above the social.
> 
> -Austin
> 
> 
> ᐧ
> 
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Jan Anders Andersson 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Austin
>> 
>> I see the four levels in Lila this way:
>> 
>> At the inorganic level, atoms and molecules don’t bother about biological
>> structures. They can do well without. Most of the planets in universe only
>> have inorganic matter.
>> 
>> At the biological level, biological structures are dependant of physical
>> and chemical ”moral” but biological structures are following another higher
>> moral that inorganic matter doesn’t care about. Identical copies are
>> produced to avoid depletion by age, mostly by division. A biological
>> structure, like the DNA are free to use just  any of the existing atoms to
>> work. The building pieces are exchangeable. At the biological level,
>> competition and survíval of the fittest is the rule, eat and be eaten.
>> 
>> At the social level, social structures are dependant of the biological
>> level to exist but the social moral is different. Social structures have no
>> physical weight.  At the social level, cooperation of unique individuals
>> with different roles in the group, unique individuals from sexual breeding
>> of two different parents, where fame and celebrity within the group, is an
>> important part of the moral. A social level are using some kind of
>> communication between the members of the group and a common standard for
>> the language. Wild horses are good at communication but they don’t use
>> words. Celebrity, social status and power is the motivator for social
>> values. A social level can work identically by any member, members are
>> exchangeable. (Isn’t it just stupid to arrange a social party or a society
>> following the moral of the biological level?)
>> 
>> At the intellectual level, intellectual structures are dependant of the
>> social level to exist but it doesn’t matter what person or society are
>> using the intellectual structure, like the idea of a natural law like
>> thermodynamics or a mathematical formula. Intellectual structures must have
>> some one thinking it to be, but just any person can think the same thought.
>> Social structures can be ruled just by power and religious faith but to
>> build a sustainable bridge or arrange the rules for a succesful game
>> deserves some intellectual capacity. The idea of human rights are an
>> example of an intellectual structure that has to be pragmatically proven to
>> be valid. The United Nations and The declaration of Human Rights in the UN
>> was a result from the 2nd world war disaster. Not to mention the idea of
>> four evolutionary levels of morality.
>> 
>> If intellectual truths would emane from individual faith only we would
>> have a problem because it is impossible to see what’s going on inside
>> anybodys head. Any society based on individual faith and perspective will
>> be impossible to produce an exact definition. That is why religious groups
>> always need a preacher, a head who never can be sure about if his followers
>> are getting the concept right. That is also the main reason why religious
>> and political groups tend to split into smaller, more militant parts. Peace
>> and understanding must be based on universal concepts and understandable
>> agreements at the intellectual level. Faith is personal while pragmatic
>> thruths are general and valid for any person or society who use them.
>> 
>> The border, or step, between the levels are not easy to define better than
>> this, I think, but this way maybe you can see why the social level must be
>> between the biological and the intellectual and not beside the intellectual
>> level.
>> 
>> best regards
>> 
>> Jan-Anders Andersson
>> 
>> 
>>> 4 nov 2015 x kl. 18:46 skrev Austin Fatheree >> :
>>> 
>>> If things have been too quiet, let me throw some things out there for

Re: [MD] Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 119, Issue 6

[Ron Kulp]

Austin,
First welcome to the discuss. Second , yes, you are going to find those types 
of discussions at the Lilasquad site. 
Here, however we like to follow the tradition of Pragmatism for the most part. 
There are a few members who are involved in the Academic side of philosophy and 
I for one am glad they contribute.
The conversation usually involves the traditional problems of philosophy and 
the push against Platonism as it exists in modern western culture and the 
struggle with current trends of anti-intellectualism.
Relativism was a major hurdle this forum recently emerged from.
Topics have ranged from Ancient Greek philosophy to pedagogy.
  I myself have benefited immensely
From reading the essential works of Plato to gain a basic context of the 
philosophic problems Robert Pirsig is addressing in his books. 
That's about as condensed as I can get given the time I have at the moment but 
welcome aboard!
-Ron

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Austin Fatheree  
> wrote:
> 
> So can any one give a cliffs notes version of where discussion of the MOQ
> is at the current time?  I've tried reading some of the posts on LilaSquad
> and I've clearly missed something as most of them are about religion and
> some strange kind of AI that has inscrutable arrays of mystic sounding
> words.
> 
> -Austin
> ᐧ
> 
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:02 PM, 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:58:54 -0600
>> From: Dan Glover 
>> To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig, Chris Alexander,  and E. Yudkowsky walk into
>>a bar...
>> Message-ID:
>>

Re: [MD] IJMS Articles

[Ron Kulp]

Arlo, Dave, Dan and yes John,
The discuss may not be as "active"
In recent months But the quality sure has improved.
I have been applying what I have learned in real world situations and
Daily practice and I have been engaging in more conversational
Practices of Rhetoric as well.
I would like to thank you gentleman for sticking with the discuss and taking 
time out of your lives to contribute.
I get excited when a new conversation pops up in my in-box
Because Philosophy for me of late
Has become an "in the trenches" sort
Experience for me in my life and it has Really been affective.
Good health to you all.
-Ron

> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:30 PM, david  wrote:
> 
> Great find. Thanks, Arlo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Moq_Discuss  on behalf of ARLO 
> JAMES BENSINGER JR 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:59 AM
> To: moq discuss
> Subject: [MD] IJMS Articles
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I can't recall if this has been shared before. I searched my archives and 
> don't see mention of it, but my apologies if this duplicates another share.
> 
> The April 2014 issue of the International Journal of Motorcycle Studies was 
> devoted to articles reflecting on Pirsig's ZMM. There are a total of seven 
> articles, some are not massive in length, but I found them all to be 
> enjoyable, if not somewhat nostalgic. I feel compelled to say upfront, this 
> is not a philosophical publication, it's self-described goal is to examine 
> "motorcycle culture", so consider it more cultural anthropology than strict 
> philosophy.
> 
> The IJMS website is here: http://motorcyclestudies.org/
> 
> The April 2014 issue is available online here: https://doaj.org/toc/1931-275X
> 
> Or you can use these links (from that page) to navigate to individual 
> articles.
> 
> Absolutely Nothing, Next 22 Miles . . . A Fugue for Motorcycle: An 
> Interpretation
> Miguel Grunstein
> http://ijms.nova.edu/Spring2014/IJMS_Artcl.Grunstein.html
> 
> Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and the Art of Philosophical Fiction
> Craig Bourne, Emily Caddick Bourne
> http://ijms.nova.edu/Fall2014/IJMS_Rndtble.BourneCaddickBourne.html
> 
> Drinking (just a little) on the Fault Line
> Barry Coleman
> http://ijms.nova.edu/Fall2014/IJMS_Rndtble.Coleman.html
> 
> Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and the Art of Shelf-Life 
> Maintenance
> Andreas Schroder
> http://ijms.nova.edu/Fall2014/IJMS_Rndtble.Schroder.html
> 
> Reflections on Philosophy and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
> Graham Priest
> http://ijms.nova.edu/Fall2014/IJMS_Rndtble.Priest.html
> 
> Introduction: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into 
> Values by Robert Pirsig: A Retrospective Roundtable, Forty Years Down the Road
> Thomas Goodmann
> http://ijms.nova.edu/Fall2014/IJMS_Rndtble.Goodmann.html
> 
> Less Zen and More Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
> Christian Pierce
> http://ijms.nova.edu/Fall2014/IJMS_Rndtble.Pierce. 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] Fwd: ACLA 2016: "Poetry as Practice, Practice as Poetry"

[Ron Kulp]

Arlo,
Thank you for posting this article.
It really emphasized the art in communication and the early story telling 
techniques of western culture
(Orpheus ) also the ancient ideas of Poiesis and Praxis (Greek).
My work load at my new job makes it
Difficult to contribute but I do still read the discuss and appreciate gems 
like your post.
Thanks again!
-Ron

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 9:40 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> A call for abstracts under the category "Poetry as Practice, Practice as 
> Poetry" came through the Foucault mailing list for the American Comparative 
> Literature Association's Annual Meeting, 17-20 March, 2016, Harvard 
> University. I did find the premise of this endeavor very interesting, and am 
> forwarding on the general description and reasoning behind this. 
> 
> Arlo
> 
> - Forwarded Message -
> From: "ROBERT.FARRELL" 
> To: foucaul...@foucault.info
> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 9:17:38 AM
> Subject: [Foucault-L] CFP: ACLA 2016: "Poetry as Practice,Practice as 
> Poetry"
> 
> 
> "Poetry as Practice, Practice as Poetry"
> 
> The philosopher Pierre Hadot worked throughout his career to locate poetry, 
> particularly Goethe’s, within forms of “spiritual exercise” grounded in 
> western philosophical and religious traditions. For Hadot, spiritual 
> exercises (or practices) are forms of thinking, meditation, or dialogue that 
> “have as their goal the transformation of our vision of the world and the 
> metamorphosis of our being.” While Hadot’s thought on spiritual practice 
> found its widest audience through Foucault’s work on “care of the self,” it 
> has recently resurfaced in Gabriel Trop’s Poetry as a Way of Life (2015), 
> whose title echoes that of the 1995 English translation of Hadot’s Philosophy 
> as a Way of Life (quoted above). Drawing on Hadot and Foucault, Trop argues 
> that the reading and writing of poetry can be understood as “aesthetic 
> exercise,” a form of practice involving "sensually oriented activity in the 
> world attempts to form, influence, perturb or otherwise generate patterns of 
> thought, perception, or action.” Though Trop is careful to distinguish his 
> ideas from Hadot and Foucault, we might argue that poetry allows the 
> aesthetic or spiritual practitioner to “struggl[e] against the ‘government of 
> individualization’” (Foucault, 1982) and to enact “a way of being, a way of 
> coping within, reacting to, and acting upon the world” (Trop, 2015).
> 
> Our seminar takes as its starting point a broad conception of “practice,” 
> both spiritual and aesthetic. We seek proposals that consider poetries and 
> ways of reading as forms of practice or that challenge the premise 
> altogether. Some questions that might be considered:
> 
> • Trop suggests that religious poetries (e.g., Greek tragedy, the Divina 
> Commedia) are conducive to “aesthetic exercise.” In what ways do poets and 
> readers within religious/meditative traditions enact disciplines/practices of 
> the self?
> • Poets associated with avant-garde movements often make strong claims about 
> the urgency of their poetics. In what ways can “poetry as practice” help us 
> understand their reading and writing practices? Can non- or even 
> anti-avant-garde poetries be understood in similar terms?
> • How might the notion of poetry as a “way of life” help us understand 
> contemporary lyric poetry?
> • Trop argues that late 18th century German poets, including Novalis and 
> Holderlin, used their poetic practice to constitute themselves as 
> non-normative subjects. What other times/places/poets might we see as 
> concerned with poetry as a form of self-constitution?
> • George Oppen suggests that “part of the function of poetry is to serve as a 
> test of truth.” In what ways can Oppen’s poetics, or those of similarly 
> engaged poets, be understood as enabling spiritual or aesthetic exercise?
> • How might the concept of spiritual/aesthetic practice contribute to current 
> debates about the relevance of poetry to the social/economic/environmental 
> justice movements?
> 
> 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] Fwd: ACLA 2016: "Poetry as Practice, Practice as Poetry"

[Ron Kulp]

? or John Fletcher. 

ORPHEUS with his lute made trees 
And the mountain tops that freeze 
   Bow themselves when he did sing: 
To his music plants and flowers 
Ever sprung; as sun and showers 
   There had made a lasting spring. 

Every thing that heard him play, 
Even the billows of the sea, 
   Hung their heads and then lay by. 
In sweet music is such art, 
   Killing care and grief of heart 
   Fall asleep, or hearing, die.

by William Shakespeare

> On Sep 7, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Ron Kulp <xa...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Arlo,
> Thank you for posting this article.
> It really emphasized the art in communication and the early story telling 
> techniques of western culture
> (Orpheus ) also the ancient ideas of Poiesis and Praxis (Greek).
> My work load at my new job makes it
> Difficult to contribute but I do still read the discuss and appreciate gems 
> like your post.
> Thanks again!
> -Ron
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2015, at 9:40 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> A call for abstracts under the category "Poetry as Practice, Practice as 
>> Poetry" came through the Foucault mailing list for the American Comparative 
>> Literature Association's Annual Meeting, 17-20 March, 2016, Harvard 
>> University. I did find the premise of this endeavor very interesting, and am 
>> forwarding on the general description and reasoning behind this. 
>> 
>> Arlo
>> 
>> - Forwarded Message -
>> From: "ROBERT.FARRELL" <robert.farr...@lehman.cuny.edu>
>> To: foucaul...@foucault.info
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 9:17:38 AM
>> Subject: [Foucault-L] CFP: ACLA 2016: "Poetry as Practice,Practice 
>> as Poetry"
>> 
>> 
>> "Poetry as Practice, Practice as Poetry"
>> 
>> The philosopher Pierre Hadot worked throughout his career to locate poetry, 
>> particularly Goethe’s, within forms of “spiritual exercise” grounded in 
>> western philosophical and religious traditions. For Hadot, spiritual 
>> exercises (or practices) are forms of thinking, meditation, or dialogue that 
>> “have as their goal the transformation of our vision of the world and the 
>> metamorphosis of our being.” While Hadot’s thought on spiritual practice 
>> found its widest audience through Foucault’s work on “care of the self,” it 
>> has recently resurfaced in Gabriel Trop’s Poetry as a Way of Life (2015), 
>> whose title echoes that of the 1995 English translation of Hadot’s 
>> Philosophy as a Way of Life (quoted above). Drawing on Hadot and Foucault, 
>> Trop argues that the reading and writing of poetry can be understood as 
>> “aesthetic exercise,” a form of practice involving "sensually oriented 
>> activity in the world attempts to form, influence, perturb or otherwise 
>> generate patterns of thought, perception, or action.” Though Trop is careful 
>> to distinguish his ideas from Hadot and Foucault, we might argue that poetry 
>> allows the aesthetic or spiritual practitioner to “struggl[e] against the 
>> ‘government of individualization’” (Foucault, 1982) and to enact “a way of 
>> being, a way of coping within, reacting to, and acting upon the world” 
>> (Trop, 2015).
>> 
>> Our seminar takes as its starting point a broad conception of “practice,” 
>> both spiritual and aesthetic. We seek proposals that consider poetries and 
>> ways of reading as forms of practice or that challenge the premise 
>> altogether. Some questions that might be considered:
>> 
>> • Trop suggests that religious poetries (e.g., Greek tragedy, the Divina 
>> Commedia) are conducive to “aesthetic exercise.” In what ways do poets and 
>> readers within religious/meditative traditions enact disciplines/practices 
>> of the self?
>> • Poets associated with avant-garde movements often make strong claims about 
>> the urgency of their poetics. In what ways can “poetry as practice” help us 
>> understand their reading and writing practices? Can non- or even 
>> anti-avant-garde poetries be understood in similar terms?
>> • How might the notion of poetry as a “way of life” help us understand 
>> contemporary lyric poetry?
>> • Trop argues that late 18th century German poets, including Novalis and 
>> Holderlin, used their poetic practice to constitute themselves as 
>> non-normative subjects. What other times/places/poets might we see as 
>> concerned with poetry as a form of self-constitution?
>> • George Oppen suggests that “part of the function of poetry is to serve as 
>> a test of truth.” In what ways can Oppen’s poetics, or those of similarly 
>&

Re: [MD] Plumbers ass

[Ron Kulp]

Even better Jonn Carl!

That's col!

I like it

Ron

> On Sep 5, 2015, at 8:17 PM, John Carl <ridgecoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I've always had a skinny ass
> But I got tired of pulling my pants, years back,  so
> I started wearing overalls
> 
> Most of the year, overalls are to warm for Cali so I cut 'em off.
> 
> It's a definitely a hobo look, stringy, baggy, overall cut-offs, but
> I've got a loop for my hammer and a slot for my pencil and my knife
> hangs easy in pocket at my side.
> 
> I'm tooled up.  who cares if I get strange looks?  who cares if nobody
> wants to copy me?
> 
> My brother refuses to looks so ridiculous and so hangs half his crack,
> out in the breeze, half the time.  I guess on some guys that looks
> good.
> 
>> On 9/4/15, Ron Kulp <xa...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> I just realized where a lot of city youth
>> Pick up style..
>> It's us middle aged suburb guys
>> 
>> We are past that high point
>> 
>> We don't care
>> 
>> We work in town and hang with the kids.
>> 
>> Lots of good kids with parents with addiction...most good, some not so
>> good.
>> 
>> My ass hangs out a lot when pulling manholes. I lost my ass somewhere in the
>> mid forties...
>> 
>> They laugh
>> 
>> I laugh
>> 
>> 
>> I see one kid impersonate me.
>> 
>> So that's how stuff starts.
>> 
>> Hmm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> .
>> 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

[MD] Plumbers ass

[Ron Kulp]

I just realized where a lot of city youth
Pick up style..
It's us middle aged suburb guys

We are past that high point

We don't care 

We work in town and hang with the kids.

Lots of good kids with parents with addiction...most good, some not so good.

My ass hangs out a lot when pulling manholes. I lost my ass somewhere in the 
mid forties...

They laugh

I laugh


I see one kid impersonate me.

So that's how stuff starts.

Hmm



.
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] Plumbers ass

[Ron Kulp]

I'm being whimsical 


But poetry must come of comedy and tragedy 

Nothing more contagious than a good laugh

.

> On Sep 4, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Ron Kulp <xa...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I just realized where a lot of city youth
> Pick up style..
> It's us middle aged suburb guys
> 
> We are past that high point
> 
> We don't care 
> 
> We work in town and hang with the kids.
> 
> Lots of good kids with parents with addiction...most good, some not so good.
> 
> My ass hangs out a lot when pulling manholes. I lost my ass somewhere in the 
> mid forties...
> 
> They laugh
> 
> I laugh
> 
> 
> I see one kid impersonate me.
> 
> So that's how stuff starts.
> 
> Hmm
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

Ron likes Arlo's post.

Share. Like. twitter.

 On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:45 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
 
 [John]
 And I felt it touched upon an explanation of myself, a bit.  For people who 
 wonder how an intellectually-oriented person can dabble in religion.
 
 [Arlo]
 I heard an analogy the other day I really like, to restate it, in many ways 
 'religion' is like the solid rocket boosters under a space shuttle. Their 
 goal is to lift the shuttle into orbit, and fall away when no longer needed. 
 Of course, there are other ways to achieve orbit, one does not NEED solid 
 rocket boosters. But when these boosters fail to fall away, when they remain 
 attached to the shuttle, ultimately the shuttle will fail to achieve a 
 sustainable orbit and will fall back down to the ground.
 
 In this analogy, 'mythology' is the larger set of the knowledge of the many 
 and different ways people have to achieve orbit. Sure, for some solid rocket 
 boosters can be a very useful tool. But when religion does not detach, when 
 it locks itself into its inerrant or exoteric forms, it actually becomes a 
 hinderance. At the level of mythology, 'religion' is viewed (as Joseph 
 Campbell does) through its esoteric form, and valued as its ability to lift- 
 and then detach- and ALL means of achieving orbit can be viewed and discussed 
 as all lifting wo/man to the same heights (the monomyth) and challenged when 
 they fail and pull wo/man back down to their (in this analogy) spiritual 
 deaths.
 
 So by dabble in religion, I hear you say something like dabble in solid 
 rocket boosters, which is fine, so long as we share an understanding that 
 there are many other ways to achieve orbit, some might be better for others 
 and no one in particular is either necessary nor required, and some (call it 
 The Cult of The Solid Rocket Booster) need to be condemned for failing to use 
 the tool properly. 
 
 But if by dabble in religion you mean support those who demand the solid 
 rocket boosters never decouple, or that everyone NEEDS solid rocket boosters 
 in order to achieve orbit, in short if you either support or fail to 
 criticize The Cult of The Solid Rocket Booster, then, yes, I would wonder how 
 an intellectually-oriented person dabble as such.
 
 Of course, all this is just losing my religion, as REM sang.
 
 [John]
 Well according to Deep Ecology, you must find a way to make nature your 
 religion. practical scientific mind is not the way, it has no provision for 
 Value.
 
 [Arlo]
 This is a condemnation of S/O science, and I would think we all share it. But 
 nature as your religion (in the John Muir way) isn't really 'religion', its 
 trying to coopt a term of value from within the S/O discourse, when, of 
 course the solution is to evolve from the S/O discourse.  We all (I hope) 
 love and respect and care for our families, but you don't hear people say 
 families are our religion because our culture normalizes love-for-family. 
 My point is you don't need 'religion' to justify love-for-nature, you just 
 need a heart.
 
 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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

Of course, some folks were hard at work trying to dispute inconvenient 
scientific facts long before conservatives began to borrow postmodernist 
rhetoric. In Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury Press, 2010), two historians, Naomi 
Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, have shown how the strategy of denying climate 
change and evolution can be traced all the way back to big tobacco companies, 
who recognized early on that even the most well-documented scientific claims 
(for instance, that smoking causes cancer) could be eroded by skillful 
government lobbying, bullying the news media, and pursuing a public-relations 
campaign. Sadly, that strategy has largely worked, and we today find it 
employed by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle organization advocating that 
intelligent-design theory be taught in the public schools as balance for the 
holes in evolutionary theory, and the Heartland Institute, which bills itself 
as the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made 
climate change. - See more at: 
http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Attack-on-Truth/230631/#sthash.cc0fahpi.dpuf

Ron replies:
Thanks for pointing me at that book Dave. I found something similar at:
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/bible_barons_how_the_gop_uses_religion_to_keep_voters_captive_to_corporate_ideology_partner/

I had a lot more to say but I have been ill and I'm in the middle of changing 
Jobs so I lost my train of thought. When things calm down and I can concentrate 
on the subject at hand I would like to take it up again.
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 15, 2015, at 2:43 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 If
 you're an intelligent person, that's just life - dealing with asshole
 prankster fools and simple-minded.   Yup.  Morons.  What choice do we
 have?  You could lock yourself up in a room but as we all know from
 experience, somebody comes knocking, sooner or later.

Ron replies:
All I'm saying is that it seems one would waste an awful amount of time
Chasing down the feasibility of EVERY idea presented to you.
You wouldn't know who was who
(Assholes and pranksters) from the
Knowledgable until you did chase
Each idea to a conclusion.
I other words by virtue of your argument you would HAVE to explore
Every possible meaningful expression
Of 2+2= potato EVERY time.
You couldn't just disqualify it after the first time you ran it down and found 
it meaningless. This leaves you open for some asshole to play the same game 
over and over, and over and
You would HAVE to oblige them.

You would spend your time as laughing stock more than finding meaning.
Don't you think?

. 
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

John,
I'm not sure how logical systems fit
Into the comment. All I was trying to playfully point out is that by virtue of 
considering ALL ideas equally and sifting through them with a critical eye, you 
are going to have to deal with the assholes pranksters fools
And the simple minded. You know,
Morons.

 

 On Jun 9, 2015, at 2:15 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 Without getting into what I meant before, let's just riff off what you
 replied, because it lines up with what I've been reading lately about
 Absolute Pragmatism...
 
 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Ron:
 Does that mean the square root of 144 equals potato has the possibility
 Of being a viable answer ?
 Written in 1907:
 
 The non-Euclidean geometry, strange to say, is not a discovery that we are
 any freer than we were before to think as we like regarding the system of
 geometrical truth. It is one part only of what Hilbert has called the
 logical analysis of our concept of space. When we take this analysis as a
 whole, it  involves a deeper insight than Euclid could possibly possess
 into the unchangeable necessities which bind together the system of logical
 relationships that the space of our experience merely exemplifies. Nothing
 could be more fixed than are these necessities. As for the numbers, which
 Dedekind called freie Schopfungen - well, his own masterpiece of  logical
 theory is a discovery and a rigid demonstration of a very remarkable and
 thoroughly objective truth about the fundamental relations in terms of
 which we all of us do our thinking.
 
 His proof that all of the endless wealth of the properties of the ordinal
 numbers follows from a certain synthesis of two of the simplest of our
 logical conceptions, neither one of which, when taken alone, seems to have
 anything to do with the conception of order or of number, - - this proof, I
 say, is a direct contribution to a systematic theory of the categories,
 and, as such, is, to the logical inquirer, a dramatically surprising
 discovery of a realm of objective truth, which nobody is free to construct
 or to abandon at his pleasure.
 
 If this be relativism, it is the relativism of an eternal system of
 relations.
 If this be freedom, it is the divine freedom of a self-determined, but, for
 that very reason, absolutely necessary fashion of thought and of activity.
 
 
 So... no, I don't think the square root of 144 is potato.  And furthermore,
 I understand why I don't think that.
 
 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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 8, 2015, at 5:07 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Jc:  Call it, scientific objectivity, used as a tool.  All answers are not
 equal, but if we treat them equally at the start, then hopefully we will
 have a more objective answer.

Ron:
Does that mean the square root of 144 equals potato has the possibility
Of being a viable answer ?

Cool

I can science too!


.
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 8, 2015, at 12:06 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 dmb says:
 
 I'd like to discuss the problem described in Baggini's article because 
 pragmatism is just what the doctor ordered. It is not relativism and it is 
 not Absolutism. Pragmatism does not say that all answers are valid and it 
 does not say there is only one right answer. I'd like to discuss this

Ron replies:
Thanks for that Dave, I think it's a very important topic. It's why I posted 
it. Since the discuss got quiet for a time I seemed to focus more on social 
media and current events.
What I found was alarming. The polarization manifests itself across
more than politics and religion. It is like the art of discussion,
Or to be more precise, the art of persuasion has become lost. To all involved 
it's an either/or proposition.
Science has been bundled with atheism. Religion uses relativism with
Devastating effectiveness in this aim.
What's worse is science/atheism isn't helping it's case with letting the 
facts speak for themselves .
All in all religion is winning the game of persuasion and science, critical 
thinking and reason have been hijacked to promote the myth of certainty and the 
absolute.
Now the question of whether or not
It's a valuable myth seems to have certainly taken a back seat to its power of 
persuasion and thats frightening. For when it comes to persuasive power in 
public opinion,
Governments and corporations would
Sooner back anti-intellectiualism  and the myth of the absolute. To them it is 
a valuable myth worth promoting.
At least, those are my own fears and misgivings.


.
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:30 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 The question isn't whether there is any absolute truth, the
 question is whether its pragmatic to mythologize such an absolute.

Ron comments:
Interesting honest question John,
I wrestle with this one constantly.
After 2000 years it has it's consequences, but having been raised in it, it 
fulfills a sacred desire.
Therefore I am constantly drawn to it and the goal of resolving reason and 
religious belief with the maturity of embracing the raw horror of the unknown.
I have my days where I prefer one over the other to be Honest.
Ron
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

Thanks for grounding Royce in context Dave, much appreciated.

One thing that I think both W.James
And Royce agree on, is that it is a clash of will or temperament.

When I say I aim at truth, what I really mean is I aim at honesty. 

When you said:
Holding beliefs contrary to the relevant evidence or unsupported by the 
relevant evidence is unethical. It's dishonest.

It struck a chord. This statement represents the basic criticism leveled
At rationalists. The typical response
Is to question the idea and meaning of relevant evidence. That it is a 
subjective matter. This was Baggini's
Concern. 
But if the return question focuses on
Honesty, one has to ask themselves
How a will towards truth absolute and
Complete squares with subjectivism.
The argument then turns towards a discussion involving many paths and
A single destination, the problem of the one and the many.
The rationalistic temperament seeks
A final destination, an end goal or good , God indeed is that final endpoint.
Coming back to honesty, although 
Limit is meaning and synonymous 
With Good, it is a human construct
Making any absolute we aim for a subjective passing caprice in the final 
assessment. One can speak of drive or will as a general abstraction
But not of any end point or final good
When concerning it. If we really want to be honest with ourselves.

In the marketplace of ideas end goals
And ultimate truths are an easy sell it
Provides simple powerful tools to navigate life. But, having said that it must 
be asked how honest it is to sell an idea like that knowing it isn't what it 
says it is.

Thanks 
Ron


 On May 27, 2015, at 3:16 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Charlene Seigfried, paraphrasing William James, 
 says intellectualism “became vicious already with Socrates and Plato, who 
 deified conceptualization and denigrated the ever-changing flow of 
 experience, thus forgetting and falsifying the origin of concepts as 
 humanly constructed extracts from the temporal flux.”
 
 
 Ron Kulp said to John:
 
 Aristotle says something similar in book alpha of metaphysics, that we seek 
 to render the unintelligible intelligible. We impose limit on experience in 
 order to better understand it.  I think that is different than a will for 
 Absolutes. I think that's where some disagree with Royce. (Ron later added:) 
 This rendering of wholes out of the many bits of experience is an artistic 
 act so that it is a will toward greater meaning not so much a truth in terms 
 of absolutes.
 
 
 
 dmb says: Royce is defending himself against James' criticism of what the 
 latter called vicious abstractionism or vicious intellectualism. Royce is 
 trying to deny the contrast between intellectualism and pragmatism by 
 reframeing it as a contrast between the will that is loyal to truth as an 
 universal ideal, and the will that is concerned with its own passing 
 caprices. The only question is whether the will really means to aim at 
 doing something that has a final and eternal meaning, Royce says.   Please 
 notice two things here. Royce has construed pragmatism as concerned with 
 passing caprices, which is incorrect if not slanderous. The second thing to 
 notice is that Royce wants to distance himself from intellectualism but the 
 claims he makes are exactly what James meant by vicious abstractionism. 
 Truth that is loyal to a universal ideal and truth that has a final and 
 eternal meaning is also a pretty good way to describe the views that Pirsig 
 rejects in Plato and Hegel.
 
 
 It's also interesting to see that Royce's view is centrally motivated by his 
 personal wishes and yet his personal wish is that reality was far more than 
 just personal wishes. He says, individualism is wrong in supposing that I 
 can ever be content with my own will in as far as it is merely an individual 
 will. Royce is contrasting that with a different will, one that defines the 
 truth that it endlessly seeks as a truth that possesses completeness, 
 totality, self-possession, and therefore absoluteness. (Sounds like 
 Schopenhauer.)   It's very seductive language and just about anyone can 
 understand, at least to some extent, Royce's desire for complete, total, and 
 absolute truth. But there are two major problems here. 1) Epistemologically 
 speaking, we just cannot have that kind of truth and so Royce is literally 
 asking for the impossible. 2) Holding beliefs contrary to the relevant 
 evidence or unsupported by the relevant evidence is unethical. It's 
 dishonest. It's intellectually sleazy, so to speak. (And endorsing that basic 
 ethical standard is one more reason to reject the notion that pragmatic truth 
 is just about individual caprice.)
 
 
 Royce's notion is truth is so highly idealized and elevated that it might as 
 well be god. That's the essence of vicious intellectualism, the denigration 
 of actual experience and the deification of abstract concepts. Reification is 
 the error of granting existential status

Re: [MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

 On May 27, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 John,
 Aristotle says something similar in book alpha of metaphysics, that we seek 
 to render the unintelligible intelligible. We impose limit on experience in 
 order to better understand it. 
 I think that is different than a will for
 Absolutes. 
 I think that's where some disagree
 With Royce.
 Ron
 To add:
This rendering of wholes out of the many bits of experience is an artistic act 
so that it is a will toward greater
Meaning not so much a truth in terms
Of absolutes.

 On May 25, 2015, at 5:00 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 dmb, all,
 
 
 
 On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Baggini wrote:
 
 The clash of civilisations is happening not between Islam and the West,
 as we are often led to believe, but between pragmatic relativism and
 dogmatic certainty.
 
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 
 We don't need Truth to be Objective, Fixed, Absolute, or Eternal and we
 can't have that kind of truth anyway. But we do need truth to be vigorous
 enough and strong enough to kill lies, bullshit, fanaticism, propaganda,
 honest mistakes and good old fashioned stupidity. We need excellence in
 thought and speech and ideas that actually work when they're put into
 practice.
 
 The contrast is not one between intellectualism and pragmatism. It is the
 contrast between two well-known attitudes of will, — the will that is loyal
 to truth as an universal ideal, and the will that is concerned with its own
 passing caprices.
 
 And yet, despite all this, the modern assault upon mere intellectualism is
 well founded. The truth of our assertions is indeed definable only by
 taking account of the meaning of our own individual attitudes of will, and
 the truth, whatever else it is, is at least instrumental in helping us
 towards the goal of all human volition. The only question is whether the
 will I really means to aim at doing something that has a final and eternal
 meaning.
 
 All logic is the logic of the will. There is no pure intellect. Thought is
 a mode of action, a mode of action distinguished from other modes mainly by
 its internal clearness of self-consciousness, by its relatively free
 control of its own procedure, and by the universality, the impersonal
 fairness and obviousness of its aims and of its motives. An idea in the
 consciousness of a thinker is simply a present consciousness of some
 expression of purpose, — a plan of action. A judgment is an act of a
 reflective and self-conscious character, an act whereby one accepts or
 rejects an idea as a sufficient expression of the very purpose that is each
 time in question. Our whole objective world is meanwhile defined for each
 of us in terms of our ideas. General assertions about the meaning of our
 ideas are reflective acts whereby we acknowledge and accept certain ruling
 principles of action.
 
 And in respect of all these aspects of doctrine I find myself at one with
 recent voluntarism, whether the latter takes the form of instrumentalism,
 or insists upon some more individualistic theory of truth. But for my part,
 in spite, or in fact because of this my voluntarism, I cannot rest in any
 mere relativism. Individualism is right in saying, I will to credit this
 or that opinion. But individualism is wrong in supposing that I can ever
 be content with my own will in as far as it is merely an individual will.
 The will to my mind is to all of us nothing but a thirst for complete and
 conscious self-possession, for fullness of life. And in terms of this its
 central motive, the will defines the truth that it endlessly seeks as a
 truth that possesses completeness, totality, self-possession, and there
 fore absoluteness.
 
 J Royce -  William James and other Essays on the Philosophy of Life
 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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

John,
Aristotle says something similar in book alpha of metaphysics, that we seek to 
render the unintelligible intelligible. We impose limit on experience in order 
to better understand it. 
I think that is different than a will for
Absolutes. 
I think that's where some disagree
With Royce.
Ron

 On May 25, 2015, at 5:00 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 dmb, all,
 
 
 
 On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Baggini wrote:
 
 The clash of civilisations is happening not between Islam and the West,
 as we are often led to believe, but between pragmatic relativism and
 dogmatic certainty.
 
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 
 We don't need Truth to be Objective, Fixed, Absolute, or Eternal and we
 can't have that kind of truth anyway. But we do need truth to be vigorous
 enough and strong enough to kill lies, bullshit, fanaticism, propaganda,
 honest mistakes and good old fashioned stupidity. We need excellence in
 thought and speech and ideas that actually work when they're put into
 practice.
 
 The contrast is not one between intellectualism and pragmatism. It is the
 contrast between two well-known attitudes of will, — the will that is loyal
 to truth as an universal ideal, and the will that is concerned with its own
 passing caprices.
 
 And yet, despite all this, the modern assault upon mere intellectualism is
 well founded. The truth of our assertions is indeed definable only by
 taking account of the meaning of our own individual attitudes of will, and
 the truth, whatever else it is, is at least instrumental in helping us
 towards the goal of all human volition. The only question is whether the
 will I really means to aim at doing something that has a final and eternal
 meaning.
 
 All logic is the logic of the will. There is no pure intellect. Thought is
 a mode of action, a mode of action distinguished from other modes mainly by
 its internal clearness of self-consciousness, by its relatively free
 control of its own procedure, and by the universality, the impersonal
 fairness and obviousness of its aims and of its motives. An idea in the
 consciousness of a thinker is simply a present consciousness of some
 expression of purpose, — a plan of action. A judgment is an act of a
 reflective and self-conscious character, an act whereby one accepts or
 rejects an idea as a sufficient expression of the very purpose that is each
 time in question. Our whole objective world is meanwhile defined for each
 of us in terms of our ideas. General assertions about the meaning of our
 ideas are reflective acts whereby we acknowledge and accept certain ruling
 principles of action.
 
 And in respect of all these aspects of doctrine I find myself at one with
 recent voluntarism, whether the latter takes the form of instrumentalism,
 or insists upon some more individualistic theory of truth. But for my part,
 in spite, or in fact because of this my voluntarism, I cannot rest in any
 mere relativism. Individualism is right in saying, I will to credit this
 or that opinion. But individualism is wrong in supposing that I can ever
 be content with my own will in as far as it is merely an individual will.
 The will to my mind is to all of us nothing but a thirst for complete and
 conscious self-possession, for fullness of life. And in terms of this its
 central motive, the will defines the truth that it endlessly seeks as a
 truth that possesses completeness, totality, self-possession, and there
 fore absoluteness.
 
 J Royce -  William James and other Essays on the Philosophy of Life
 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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

 On May 23, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I'd say science pertains to a representation of reality. That's why
 science is malleable and subject to revision... no?
 
Ron replies:
I would say so, a model or representation is tested in experience
As having the ability to accurately predict observable phenomena.
Thanks Dan that's a better way of putting it.

 On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 John,
 What does science pertain to if not
 A kind of reality?
 
 On May 22, 2015, at 3:09 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron, Jan and all,
 
 Science sees itself outside of the rhetorical game?  Sort of.  Perhaps
 another way of saying it is that science sees it's rhetorical games as of a
 very special class.  That pertaining to actual reality.  When science does
 this, it's making a big mistake.
 
 On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 This is what was very interesting about the article from my point of view.
 Science sees itself as outside the rhetorical game. Therefore it does not
 utilize the art of persuasion as effectively because it assumes the facts
 speak for themselves , the facts
 Themselves should be convincing enough. However, experience shows that
 this not enough and sadly science is losing the battle in the arena of
 public opinion.
 
 On May 20, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 Hey Jan, John ,
 I think the idea being expressed In that quote John posted is that what
 often is passed as fact is often opinion or point of view. An assumption
 . However, facts or truth in scientific terms is verifiable in experience.
 Often that quote or idea is popularly misapplied in academic environments
 today.
 -Ron
 
 On May 20, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Jan Anders Andersson 
 janander...@telia.com wrote:
 
 Hi JC
 
 Doesn’t that show the dichotomy between a social moral, which is
 defined by a group excluding other groups, and the intellectual moral
 level, where scientific concepts are the same for any individual?
 
 
 it can lead a hasty interpretation in that direction, Jan-anders, but a
 closer examination shows a deeper truth - that the distinction between
 social and intellectual is non-absolute.  that is, the line between is
 more dualistic and relational than distinct and oppositional.  At least
 from an enlightened point of view!  Which I take as an assumption, here.
 
 
 
 It is also problematic, for me, to assume the 4th level (as we
 conceptualize it for convenience) to be ruled by science.  Intellect is
 much bigger than mere science can comprehend - for intellect accepts the
 existence of DQ, and science does not.
 
 JC
 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
 
 
 
 -- 
 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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

John,
What does science pertain to if not
A kind of reality?

 On May 22, 2015, at 3:09 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron, Jan and all,
 
 Science sees itself outside of the rhetorical game?  Sort of.  Perhaps
 another way of saying it is that science sees it's rhetorical games as of a
 very special class.  That pertaining to actual reality.  When science does
 this, it's making a big mistake.
 
 On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 This is what was very interesting about the article from my point of view.
 Science sees itself as outside the rhetorical game. Therefore it does not
 utilize the art of persuasion as effectively because it assumes the facts
 speak for themselves , the facts
 Themselves should be convincing enough. However, experience shows that
 this not enough and sadly science is losing the battle in the arena of
 public opinion.
 
 On May 20, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 Hey Jan, John ,
 I think the idea being expressed In that quote John posted is that what
 often is passed as fact is often opinion or point of view. An assumption
 . However, facts or truth in scientific terms is verifiable in experience.
 Often that quote or idea is popularly misapplied in academic environments
 today.
 -Ron
 
 On May 20, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Jan Anders Andersson 
 janander...@telia.com wrote:
 
 Hi JC
 
 Doesn’t that show the dichotomy between a social moral, which is
 defined by a group excluding other groups, and the intellectual moral
 level, where scientific concepts are the same for any individual?
 
 
 it can lead a hasty interpretation in that direction, Jan-anders, but a
 closer examination shows a deeper truth - that the distinction between
 social and intellectual is non-absolute.  that is, the line between is
 more dualistic and relational than distinct and oppositional.  At least
 from an enlightened point of view!  Which I take as an assumption, here.
 
 
 
 It is also problematic, for me, to assume the 4th level (as we
 conceptualize it for convenience) to be ruled by science.  Intellect is
 much bigger than mere science can comprehend - for intellect accepts the
 existence of DQ, and science does not.
 
 JC
 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] Orphism and SOM

[Ron Kulp]

The myth of the dismemberment of Dionysus by the Titans, is alluded to byPlato 
in his Phaedo (69d) in which Socrates claims that the initiations of the 
Dionysian Mysteries are similar to those of the philosophic path. 
Orpheus was said to have invented the Mysteries of Dionysus.[4]Poetry 
containing distinctly Orphic beliefs has been traced back to the 6th century 
BC[5] or at least 5th century BC, and graffiti of the 5th century BC apparently 
refers to Orphics
The main elements of Orphism differed from popular ancient Greek religion in 
the following ways:

by characterizing human souls as divine and immortal but doomed to live (for a 
period) in a grievous circle of successive bodily lives throughmetempsychosis 
or the transmigration of souls.
by prescribing an ascetic way of life which, together with secret initiation 
rites, was supposed to guarantee not only eventual release from the grievous 
circle but also communion with god(s).
-wiki
Ron:
I found it wildly interesting that the Orphic symbols pointing to the dynamic 
renewal and divine inspiration is also the root of the subject object 
dichotomy. In fact Plato's theory of forms seems to be Influenced by the 
Dionysian idea of soul and body. My eyes have now turned to Orphism. To gain a 
deeper understanding of the metaphysics of Quality. 
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

Hey Jan, John ,
  I think the idea being expressed In that quote John posted is that what often 
is passed as fact is often opinion or point of view. An assumption . However, 
facts or truth in scientific terms is verifiable in experience. Often that 
quote or idea is popularly misapplied in academic environments today.
-Ron 

 On May 20, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com 
 wrote:
 
 Hi JC
 
 Doesn’t that show the dichotomy between a social moral, which is defined by a 
 group excluding other groups, and the intellectual moral level, where 
 scientific concepts are the same for any individual?
 
 The Zip Codes for New York City, The number of states in the USA, E=MC2, 
 Thermodynamics and algebraics etc.
 
 All the best
 
 Jan-Anders
 
 19 maj 2015 x kl. 20:35 skrev John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com:
 
 Perhaps the most powerful idea to filter through from the universities to
 the streets was articulated by Foucault, who adapted and popularised the
 Nietzschean idea that what passes for truth is actually no more than power.
 There are no facts, only attempts to impose your view on the world by
 fixing it as The Truth. This idea is now so mainstream that even a
 conservative like Donald Rumsfeld could complain about those who lived in
 the reality-based community, arguing that's not the way the world really
 works anymore ... when we act, we create our own reality.
 
 On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 Unless we can make a convincing case that the choice is not between
 relativism or dogmatism, more and more people will reject the former and
 embrace the latter. When they do, those who helped create the impression
 that modern, secular rationality leaves everything up for grabs in the
 marketplace of belief will have to take their share of the blame.
 
 
 On May 17, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 I know Baggini is not too well favored here but he does make an
 interesting observation much akin to RMP
 In regard to cultural crisis and the return to conservative dogma.
 http://gu.com/p/jm38/sbl
 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
 
 
 
 -- 
 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
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

This is what was very interesting about the article from my point of view. 
Science sees itself as outside the rhetorical game. Therefore it does not 
utilize the art of persuasion as effectively because it assumes the facts speak 
for themselves , the facts
Themselves should be convincing enough. However, experience shows that this not 
enough and sadly science is losing the battle in the arena of public opinion.

 On May 20, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 Hey Jan, John ,
  I think the idea being expressed In that quote John posted is that what 
 often is passed as fact is often opinion or point of view. An assumption . 
 However, facts or truth in scientific terms is verifiable in experience. 
 Often that quote or idea is popularly misapplied in academic environments 
 today.
 -Ron 
 
 On May 20, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com 
 wrote:
 
 Hi JC
 
 Doesn’t that show the dichotomy between a social moral, which is defined by 
 a group excluding other groups, and the intellectual moral level, where 
 scientific concepts are the same for any individual?
 
 The Zip Codes for New York City, The number of states in the USA, E=MC2, 
 Thermodynamics and algebraics etc.
 
 All the best
 
 Jan-Anders
 
 19 maj 2015 x kl. 20:35 skrev John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com:
 
 Perhaps the most powerful idea to filter through from the universities to
 the streets was articulated by Foucault, who adapted and popularised the
 Nietzschean idea that what passes for truth is actually no more than power.
 There are no facts, only attempts to impose your view on the world by
 fixing it as The Truth. This idea is now so mainstream that even a
 conservative like Donald Rumsfeld could complain about those who lived in
 the reality-based community, arguing that's not the way the world really
 works anymore ... when we act, we create our own reality.
 
 On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 Unless we can make a convincing case that the choice is not between
 relativism or dogmatism, more and more people will reject the former and
 embrace the latter. When they do, those who helped create the impression
 that modern, secular rationality leaves everything up for grabs in the
 marketplace of belief will have to take their share of the blame.
 
 
 On May 17, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 I know Baggini is not too well favored here but he does make an
 interesting observation much akin to RMP
 In regard to cultural crisis and the return to conservative dogma.
 http://gu.com/p/jm38/sbl
 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
 
 
 
 -- 
 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
 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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

I know Baggini is not too well favored here but he does make an interesting 
observation much akin to RMP
In regard to cultural crisis and the return to conservative dogma.
http://gu.com/p/jm38/sbl
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] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Ron Kulp]

Unless we can make a convincing case that the choice is not between relativism 
or dogmatism, more and more people will reject the former and embrace the 
latter. When they do, those who helped create the impression that modern, 
secular rationality leaves everything up for grabs in the marketplace of belief 
will have to take their share of the blame.


 On May 17, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 I know Baggini is not too well favored here but he does make an interesting 
 observation much akin to RMP
 In regard to cultural crisis and the return to conservative dogma.
 http://gu.com/p/jm38/sbl
 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 Platonist and a Sophist discuss Quality

[Ron Kulp]

David,
Thanks for Catherine's paper. I thought it was well done. I used to agree that 
Socrates seems to Be misrepresented by RMP but Dave
Buchanan makes an interesting point
In that what Pirsig is responding to
Cultural assumptions regarding Plato.

In regard to your rebuttal I have to
Comment on what you said about
Dialectic and truth in regard to Socrates. 
In the second half of the 5th century BC, sophists were teachers who 
specialized in using the tools ofphilosophy and rhetoric to entertain or 
impress or persuade an audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Socrates 
promoted an alternative method of teaching which came to be called the Socratic 
method.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better 
hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to 
contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths 
that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with 
other beliefs

-wiki Socratic method

To be sure, Socrates was concerned With the clarity and consistency of ideas. 
Therefore Socrates truthis a Love for clarity and consistency.

It is also interesting to note that Protagoras ( a sophist ) is credited For 
originating the method.

If we really want to understand the Difference between the sophists Arête and 
Socrates truth then we Are going to have to look at what is Meant by them.

In the Homeric poems, Arete is frequently associated with bravery, but more 
often with effectiveness. The man or woman of Arete is a person of the highest 
effectiveness; they use all their faculties--strength, bravery and wit--to 
achieve real results.
What Socrates argues is that excellence is an anything you like
Kind of endeavor without clarity and
Consistency.
I believe this was the conclusion RMP
Arrived at in his work. Part of the journey of Pirsigs novels includes the
Attack and deconstruction of modern
Academia and beliefs in our culture.
If the project is to expand reason then
It's not as simple as sophists are right
And Socrates is wrong.
It's important to note that sophist does not represent an ideology, but 
rather sophists were simply 1) distinguished public speakers and 2) taught at a 
tertiary level for money. That does not imply any common beliefs beyond a 
commitment to education.
In conclusion I think RMP was not misguided in the assessment of the popular 
interpretation of Plato and
Socrates. I argue that RMP used
Socratic method in his novels. He
Employed Elenchus and the reader
Was supposed to arrive at aporia.
It incited the reader (or was supposed
To) to take a closer re-evaluative look
At Socrates and Plato and Aristotle,
To eliminate common cultural assumptions about their work.

Thanks for the topic of discussion !
-Ron 


 On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:27 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
 
  Hi All,
 
 
 I’ve recently written a response to Ancient Greek Philosophy Academic 
 Catherine Rowett’s paper on ZMM. 
 
 
 Thanks go to Catherine for not ignoring ZMM and Ant for comments on final 
 draft.
 
 
 Links:
 
 
 Catherine’s original paper:
 
 
 https://www.academia.edu/172951/Absolute_goodness_rhetoric_and_rationality_a_discussion_of_Robert_Pirsigs_novel_Zen_and_the_art_of_motorcycle_maintenance_and_Platos_Phaedrus
 
 
 
 The response paper: 
 
 
 https://www.academia.edu/11703364/A_review_of_Absolute_goodness_rhetoric_and_rationality_a_discussion_of_Robert_Pirsig_s_novel_Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance_and_Plato_s_Phaedrus._
 
 
 
 Love to hear any feedback.
 
 
 Best,
 
 
 David.
 
 
 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] Paths To Dynamic Quality?

[Ron Kulp]

Hello Horse, all,
 I recently read an article about the 432 hz frequency the natural frequency Of 
harmonic resonance
And how it relates to music and the
Vibration of the universe in quantum
Terms. Tibetan mandellas are said to be based on harmonic frequency patterns of 
om.
There is a lot on the web about the healing properties of this frequency.
I don't know how much is based in hard science but it's worth doing a search on 
it.

Ron


 On Mar 29, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
 
 Hiya Dan, Adrie, 'ngriffis', Ron and all
 
 It's been a while since I posted anything but I was reading this thread and 
 it got me thinking - especially the bit about 'the magic' and it's apparent 
 propensity for wandering off every now and again!
 I've been quite passionate about all sorts of things in my life and for the 
 most part that passion does seem to dissipate after a while - dunno why, 
 maybe it's the initial expectation failing to materialise and after a time 
 something else appears to replace it. Like you say it doesn't completely 
 disappear it just seems to get buried under other things - you can still hear 
 it's muffled little voice if you listen carefully.
 But for some reason, for me, this has never really happened with music. I 
 can't remember a period in my life where I haven't remained completely 
 enthralled by it. Sure, particular songs, bands and even genres wax and wane 
 with worrying regularity but there's always something new coming along or 
 something old to be re-discovered. It was something that struck me when I 
 first read Lila and Pirsig talks about hearing a tune on someone's car radio 
 - I connected with that.
 I've often wondered what it is about music that, once you're hooked, it 
 doesn't let go - I can't think of anyone I know who loves music that has ever 
 lost that love. It's kind of like a drug in that way - something you can't do 
 without, al least not for any significant time. Maybe it's less like a drug 
 and more like food or oxygen - something you have to have to stay alive.
 Something that seems to be more obvious now is how most musicians don't stop 
 being musicians until The Reaper has a word in their ear - and in Keith 
 Richards case he probably has done already but Keef appears to have pulled 
 rank!
 Maybe it has something to do with the 'Code of Art' that Pirsig refers to - 
 not something we've discussed for a while - as a link (or whatever) between 
 Static and Dynamic Quality. I haven't really thought of it in that way before!
 
 Anyway, as ever, good to hear from you guys- stay well :)
 
 Cheers
 
 Horse
 
 On 29/03/2015 20:20, Dan Glover wrote:
 Adrie,
 
 On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Adrie Kintziger parser...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 Snip from Dan
 I suspect you already have 'DQ' in your life. As living beings we all
 do. The thing is though, we become distracted by the shiny pretty
 things that permeate our reality from the time we wake till the time
 we go back to sleep. The magic's gone, replaced by the latest
 technological innovations, the newest iPhone, the next generation LED,
 etc...
 
 Hi Dan,long time no see.The magic's gone,i'll kept on reading this
 line for some minutes asking myself where the magic went.
 I do not think it's ever gone,or absent entirely but just maybe we become
 lazy or losse a part of our natural wonder and curiosity.
 I wonder, could i still feel or expierience wonder when i discover an owl's
 nest or a little salamander when i'm fishing?
 I think i  do.
 But i also think that a certain numbness comes along in life.Still ,
 writing like you do, is a constant playing with an unfolding reality,full
 of wonder and new things to shape.
 My fingers are rusty to typ, as is my English,but things will improve
 beause i'm retired nowadays.
 Hi Adrie,
 Great to hear from you! What are you doing now that you have time to
 do it? Me, I've got a little ways to go before I retire and even then
 it'll only be from my Brotberuf... you know, my bread job. Yes, you're
 right. The magic isn't really gone. It gets covered up under a veneer
 of that which we convince ourselves life is about.
 
 I like to people watch. I was in the shop the other day when a father
 and his young son came in to have work done on their car. They both
 were deeply involved in the smartphones they carried to the point
 where it became apparent (to me) that neither of them interacted on a
 personal basis with each other or with those around them. Kid must
 have been five, maybe six, dad in his late twenties, early thirties.
 Well do to, a nice ride, wearing fine clothes... all the wealth that
 society can bestow upon any of us.
 
 It made me sad to watch them. Neither of them bothered looking up when
 I walked into the break room where they sat. I said hi automatically.
 That's what I do. The dad grunted at me. Just something
 unintelligible. The kid said nothing, 

Re: [MD] Marcus Aurelius and MOQ

[Ron Kulp]

 On Mar 15, 2015, at 5:21 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron said to dmb:
 
 Speaking of this Dave [the MOQ's levels], I was kicking around the notion 
 that the Sophists were promoting social good. Wondering what you may make of 
 that in terms of conflict with Socrates intellectual good.
 
 
 dmb says:
 
 As I read it, Plato would like us to see the Sophists that way, as something 
 appealing to common opinions, feelings, emotions and otherwise less than 
 intellectual. And this is an argument that Plato won a long time ago. But 
 this is exactly what Pirsig is resisting. He wants to tell a different story 
 wherein the Sophists were teaching Quality, just like himself.

Ron replies:
But were they teaching Quality just
Like Bob? We only have Plato's
Protagoras to really get a feel for what was being taught and why.
 he claimed to teach the proper management of one's own affairs, how best to 
run one's household, and the management of public affairs, how to make the most 
effective contribution to the affairs of the city by word and action

DMB quoting RMP:

 Lightning hits!
 
 Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching! Not 
 ethical relativism. Not pristine virtue. But areté. Excellence. 
 Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before form. 
 Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been 
 absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, 
 and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric.
 
 I think he means that the Sophists put Quality above not only physical and 
 social goods but also intellectual good. Quality is absolute in a ubiquitous 
 way, permeating everything including excellence in thought and speech.

Ron replies:

I think the Sophists as representative 
Of Protagoras agree with Pirsigs assertion that intellect support 
Social goods and never undercut
Them.
The portrayal in the Protagoras shows little trace of relativism, either 
individual or social; instead he maintains that the essential social virtues 
are justice and self-restraint, and that without universal inculcation of those 
virtues the survival of society is impossible.
-Stanford 
This leads me to believe Protagoras saw that justice and self restraint 
We're not only necessary for human
Society but a natural out growth of 
Nature, as universal truths. Also,
That excellence was good citizenship.
 
 
 Ron continued:
 
 Ant and I were recently discussing the encapsulation of the Good off list and 
 coincidentally I found it in Philebus where the discussion revolves around 
 pleasure and reason. I found it in Philebus specifically 65a-e. You have to 
 read the entire thing to get the gist of how it involves the forms. [...] 
 Scholars agree that this was one of Plato's last works. Timeaus is where I 
 can put my finger on using that encapsulation as a vehicle for the demiurge. 
 As far as I know, this was one of the few texts available to early Christian 
 thinkers.
 
 
 dmb says:
 
 It's certainly possible to make a scholarly case that the most common and 
 persistent interpretations of Plato are mistaken in some way but I think 
 that's almost beside the point because those common and persistent 
 interpretations constitute the history of philosophy and that's what Pirsig 
 is taking on.[...]

Ron replies:
True, yet
It seems the root of his rhetorical argument lies in just where he agrees with 
the ancients and where things began to Go wrong. The Sophists
We're not ethical relativists. Protagoras was
The only Sophist charged with that
Philosophic crime.
If He is going to recover the root of western philosophy,
It seems to me he must clarify what we do have in the way of textual evidence 
to support his claims.
Stanford encyclopedia of Philosphy
Has done most of the work  here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists/



 Thanks Dave
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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] Marcus Aurelius and MOQ

[Ron Kulp]

 On Mar 7, 2015, at 7:11 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron said:
 
 Marcus was considered a stoic philosopher and stoicism has Platonic roots, I 
 believe. The passions are rejected. Pirsig, on the other hand, seems to place 
 more importance on emotion and feeling as a guiding principle toward 
 intellect. There are ideas that are similar but they come from different 
 places in context. It will be interesting to see what others think. Thanks 
 for the topic!
 
 
 dmb says:
 
 Yes, that is one important difference. 
 
 But it also shows that the MOQ's moral hierarchy is based in part on some 
 very old and very basic ideas. Pleasures of the flesh (biological good) and 
 the love of wealth and honor (social good) have both been treated as lower 
 than the pleasure of the mind (intellectual good) since the birth of 
 philosophy. What Pirsig does is show how they are all derived from the same 
 source, which makes the whole picture a lot more coherent. 
 
 
 Ron replies:
Speaking of this Dave, I was kicking
Around the notion that the Sophists
Were promoting social good. Wondering what you may make of
That in terms of conflict with Socrates
Intellectual good.
Ant and I were recently discussing
The encapsulation of the Good off list 
And coincidentally I found it in Philebus where the discussion revolves around 
pleasure and reason.I found it in Philebus specifically 
65a-e.
You have to read the entire thing to
Get the gist of how it involves the forms.
However, one can argue that Socrates puts forth a trinity of 
Forms (beauty, proportion, and truth ) as A UNITYof the Good. Which he stresses 
it is to be taken a one. Measure and
Proportion manifest themselves in all
Areas as beauty and virtue
He then holds truth as the arbiter 
Between reason and pleasure asks
Which is more akin to truth. 
Next, measure is the arbiter ,then
Beauty. Pleasure loses in each comparison. Pleasure posses the limitless a 
property of the ever changing flux where reason posses
The property of form,the limited.
It is this rhetorical argument, purposely Left open, that convinced
The reader that not only truth measure and proportion were the embodiment of 
the good, but that
They were fixed and eternal.


Scholars agree that this was one of Plato's last works. Timeaus is where
I can put my finger on using that encapsulation as a vehicle for the demiurge. 
As far as I know, this was one of the few texts available to early Christian 
thinkers.

Just some thoughts

Thnx Dave

.



 
 On Mar 5, 2015, at 11:30 AM, ngriffis ngrif...@bellsouth.net wrote:
 
 
 
 I came across this thought #55 in Book 7 in Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
 (Roman Emperor and Philosopher, 121 to 180 AD):
 
 
 
  Do not look around at the directing minds of other people, but keep
 straight ahead to where nature is leading you - both universal nature, in
 what happens to you, and your own nature, in what you must do yourself.
 Every creature must do what follows from its' own constitution. The rest of
 creation is constituted to serve rational beings (just as in everything else
 the lower exists for the higher), but rational beings are here to serve each
 other. So the main principle in man's constitution is the social. The second
 is resistance to the promptings of the flesh. It is the specific property of
 rational and intelligent activity to isolate itself and never be influenced
 by the activity of the senses or impulses: both these are of the animal
 order, and it is the aim of the intelligent activity to be sovereign over
 them and never yield them the mastery - and rightly so, as it is the very
 nature of intelligence to put all these things to its' own use. The third
 element in a rational constitution is a judgment unhurried and undeceived.
 So let your directing mind hold fast to these principles and follow the
 straight road ahead: then it has what belongs to it. 
 
 
 
  I think this quote touches on some of what Mr. Pirsig built his
 philosophy upon, perhaps similar ideas from different sources. It gives us
 an idea of the foundations that brought us to MOQ. I am always delighted
 when historic knowledge dovetails into present-day leading-edge knowledge. I
 hope the subscribers to MOQ find this of interest.
 
 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] What is the present?

[Ron Kulp]

Fighting ignorance since 1973
(It's taking longer than we thought)

Great article thanks Arlo

 On Mar 6, 2015, at 2:47 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
 
 Hi All,
 
 Just sharing this, as it was brought to my attention today. The Straight 
 Dope question of the day is What is the present?. 
 
 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3214/what-is-the-present
 
 Obviously, 'Cecil' has some fun with his answer, and, in that light, I think 
 it's an answer you'll find entertaining.
 
 Arlo
 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] Marcus Aurelius and MOQ

[Ron Kulp]

Marcus was considered a stoic philosopher and stoicism has Platonic roots I 
believe. The passions
Are rejected.
Pirsig on the other hand seems to place more importance on emotion
And feeling as a guiding principle
Toward intellect.
There are ideas that are similar but
They come from different places in
Context.
It will be interesting to see what others think.
Thanks for the topic!
-Ron

 On Mar 5, 2015, at 11:30 AM, ngriffis ngrif...@bellsouth.net wrote:
 
 
 
 I came across this thought #55 in Book 7 in Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
 (Roman Emperor and Philosopher, 121 to 180 AD):
 
 
 
Do not look around at the directing minds of other people, but keep
 straight ahead to where nature is leading you - both universal nature, in
 what happens to you, and your own nature, in what you must do yourself.
 Every creature must do what follows from its' own constitution. The rest of
 creation is constituted to serve rational beings (just as in everything else
 the lower exists for the higher), but rational beings are here to serve each
 other. So the main principle in man's constitution is the social. The second
 is resistance to the promptings of the flesh. It is the specific property of
 rational and intelligent activity to isolate itself and never be influenced
 by the activity of the senses or impulses: both these are of the animal
 order, and it is the aim of the intelligent activity to be sovereign over
 them and never yield them the mastery - and rightly so, as it is the very
 nature of intelligence to put all these things to its' own use. The third
 element in a rational constitution is a judgment unhurried and undeceived.
 So let your directing mind hold fast to these principles and follow the
 straight road ahead: then it has what belongs to it. 
 
 
 
I think this quote touches on some of what Mr. Persig built his
 philosophy upon, perhaps similar ideas from different sources. It gives us
 an idea of the foundations that brought us to MOQ. I am always delighted
 when historic knowledge dovetails into present-day leading-edge knowledge. I
 hope the subscribers to MOQ find this of interest.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 Myth of Sisyphus

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 On Dec 23, 2014, at 12:02 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron:
 Shakespeare answered
 That it is also the fear of death that makes it better to be than not to 
 be.
 Then we have Socrates that asks
 What it means to lead a Good life
 
 Dan:
 What was his answer? And does leading a good life equate with knowing
 that a life is worthwhile?
 
 Ron replies:
 Interesting question. Socrates broke
 It down in much the same way RMP
 Did, physically (moderation) socially
 (Goodwill) and intellectually (wisdom)
 Which he boils down to the highest pleasure. It seems to me that Socrates 
 associates leading a good
 Life as leading a pleasing life.
 
 Dan:
 Pleasing in what fashion? From what I gather, Socrates was pretty much
 an itinerant beggar. He lived like a pauper in the midst of plenty. He
 was an usurper of youth. He died a criminal by his own admission. Are
 we to take the word of such a man that his life was pleasing? If so,
 why did he throw it away so frivolously? Or did he?
 
Ron replies:
I wouldn't say he did, no..
The dialog I remember is a discussion
Involving what it means to lead a good life. The interlocutor was asserting 
that physical pleasure was
The highest and best. Our boy Socrates thought wisdom was better
And proceeded to persuade us that
The love of wisdom was best and most pleasurable, held above all others. I 
remember when I read it
It seemed to connect up with a lot
Of things I've read about on how
Understanding is a literal turn on.
It gets you off. So I've always kind
Of taken Socrates to meaning something along those lines.

 Ron:
 With that being said, I would venture
 To project that a pleasing life would
 Be a worthwhile life.
 
 Dan:
 To the Nazis, the holocaust was a pleasing life. To the followers of
 the Islamic State, the sharia is a pleasing life. I somehow doubt any
 of us here would consider those lifestyles as anything worthwhile.
 Mind you, I'm not arguing with you so much as seeking a clear solution
 to what constitutes a worthwhile life. Is there anything that we can
 point to universally in that regard? Or are we all on our own when it
 comes to discovering what really turns our crank?
 
Ron replies:
Great question, and I think I know
Where you're headed.
My understanding is that the universal
Is the feeling. We all are on our own,
But what is shared is the passion for
What is best.

 Ron:
 Therefore knowing for Socrates
 Is in the empirical pleasing sense of artistic Practice not an abstract, 
 universal concept by which we measure a life.
 
 Dan:
 But what about our life? Was Socrates saying we're all artists in our
 own way? Or is that artistry found in the practice no matter how
 mundane?
 
Ron replies:
I'm going to assume Socrates was
Familiar with Heraclitus and that
The love of wisdom is a passion
And love in practice. It exists in action.

 Ron:
 And I think that makes a distinct difference
 In ones outlook.
 
 Dan:
 Possibly. The more personal the story the greater impact it seems to
 have on the reader. Is that the power of ZMM? I think so.
 
 Thanks, Ron.
 
 Ron:
I agree , thAnks again for the conversation.
 
 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 Myth of Sisyphus

[Ron Kulp]

 On Dec 23, 2014, at 12:02 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron:
 Shakespeare answered
 That it is also the fear of death that makes it better to be than not to be.
 Then we have Socrates that asks
 What it means to lead a Good life
 
 Dan:
 What was his answer? And does leading a good life equate with knowing
 that a life is worthwhile?

Ron replies:
Interesting question. Socrates broke
It down in much the same way RMP
Did, physically (moderation) socially
(Goodwill) and intellectually (wisdom)
Which he boils down to the highest pleasure. It seems to me that Socrates 
associates leading a good
Life as leading a pleasing life.

With that being said, I would venture
To project that a pleasing life would
Be a worthwhile life.

Therefore knowing for Socrates 
Is in the empirical pleasing sense of artistic Practice not an abstract, 
universal concept by which we measure a life.

And I think that makes a distinct difference
In ones outlook. 

.thank you Dan
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] My message did have content. MD stripped it for some reason.

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jan 3, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 This message has no content.
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 myth ...

[Ron Kulp]

 On Dec 23, 2014, at 12:02 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron:
 Shakespeare answered
 That it is also the fear of death that makes it better to be than not to be.
 Then we have Socrates that asks
 What it means to lead a Good life
 
 Dan:
 What was his answer? And does leading a good life equate with knowing
 that a life is worthwhile?

Ron replies:
Interesting question. Socrates broke
It down in much the same way RMP
Did, physically (moderation) socially
(Goodwill) and intellectually (wisdom)
Which he boils down to the highest pleasure. It seems to me that Socrates 
associates leading a good
Life as leading a pleasing life.

With that being said, I would venture
To project that a pleasing life would
Be a worthwhile life.

Therefore knowing for Socrates 
Is in the empirical pleasing sense of artistic Practice not an abstract, 
universal concept by which we measure a life.

And I think that makes a distinct difference
In ones outlook. 

.thank you Dan
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] happy new year

[Ron Kulp]

I have a good one, just don't get a chance to use it!

 On Jan 1, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
 
 Absolutely - Happy New Year Folks. Hope you all have good ones :)
 
 Horse
 
 On 01/01/2015 21:33, Dan Glover wrote:
 Hello Adrie
 Happy New Year to you as well! And to all!
 Dan
 
 On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Adrie Kintziger parser...@gmail.com wrote:
 Well, happy new year guys
 adrie
 
 --
 parser
 Moq_Discuss mailing list
 Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
 http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
 Archives:
 http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
 http://moq.org/md/archives.html
 
 -- 
 
 
 Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments 
 that take our breath away.
 — Bob Moorehead
 
 
 
 ---
 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 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:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html

Re: [MD] MOQ and science

[Ron Kulp]

On Dec 22, 2014, at 5:42 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:

DMB:
 To take ideals, abstractions, universals and the like as actual things is
 the most persistent feature of Idealist (or Rationalist) philosophers.
 
 
 JC:
 So to take Quality, as an actual thing (meaning existent, I assume) would
 fall under the same heading?  For is not DQ an ideal?  And an abstraction?
 and a Universal?  I don't see how you can't see that.  It's flabbergasting.

Ron comments:
That us just it, for an empiricist,
The Dynamic is not an ideal or 
Abstraction. Not a metaphysical
Chess piece, but actual immediate
Experience, the burning in the now.

You may argue that immediate 
Experience is composed of analogies 
And ideas, and we use those analogies to understand make sense
And give meaning to immediate experience but those analogies 
Are only ever simplifications and
Are not the source of those ideas.

.
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 Myth of Sisyphus

[Ron Kulp]

 On Dec 22, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 The first paragraph caught my attention:
 
 There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is
 suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to
 answering the fundamental question of philosophy.

Ron comments:
Truly a great post Dan.

I recently viewed the film God is
Not dead in which the defining justification for the belief in God was
That life wasn't worth living without
The concept. Shakespeare answered
That it is also the fear of death that makes it better to be than not to be.
 Then we have Socrates that asks
What it means to lead a Good life
And Aristotle that states wonder and the ecstasy of being, of life at its best
Is the reason for living, that knowing increases this feeling.
The Buddhists and the bushido say
You do not fully live unless you are
Constantly aware of your own death
That transitory knowledge of being makes life more meaningful.

That's why I like the idea of realizing
The dynamic within the seemingly 
Rigid and static.

If you call it God, it doesn't  quite
Ring, because what drives it is not
Fear of death but the joy of being.

With the joy of being there is no
Fear of death no use for the concept
Of God.

Or so it seems to me.

Thanks Dan


,

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] MOQ and science

[Ron Kulp]

 On Dec 18, 2014, at 2:17 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 God is a concept that some find useful, and some do not.  Whether or not
 you find the conceptualization of God pragmatically useful, personally,
 should not preclude the intellectual considerations of metaphysical stances
 by thinkers who DO find such conceptualization useful.  I should think this
 would be obvious to any real student of W. James.

Ron comments:
Some questions that need to be answered :
Useful for what?
Who's purposes?

It also applies to the concept/ideal
Of the Good. Who's Good? 
We can talk in generalities all day
But when it comes to actual 
Meaning in particular circumstances
Things stop being so neat for the
Conceptions of useful and the good.
What it comes down to is our reasons
When it comes to explanation. People have reasons for their beliefs.
Whether or not those reasons are intellectual in nature seems to matter
A great deal.
What I gather is that you are saying
Is that RMPs DQ is a great explanation for God, however does
It give sufficient reason for a belief
In God? I think this is where Pirsigs
Explanation of the undefined Good
Is lacking for a strong intellectual case for reason for belief in such
A un concept. 
DQ says absolutely nothing about
The nature and quality of the Good
There fore it can say nothing meaningful about God.
The very same thing happened before
With the doctrine of ideas. The explanation of the ineffable undefinable 
inconceivable one
Or prime mover was taken as the
Rational justification for the qualities
And nature of God and the afterlife.

Beware graven images John Carl!

The living word can not be spoken!

The very same criticism you level
On pure experience may be leveled
On DQ as God. It is wrought with
Bias and prejudice forged from
The past. 

Bad medicine.

.
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] MOQ and science

[Ron Kulp]

Dave,
You continue to impress me with
Sound explanation.

If I was referee, you scored a hit.
JC?


 On Dec 19, 2014, at 11:25 AM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 http://www.tricycle.com/blog/six-questions-b-alan-wallace
 
 
 Fundamentally, I find Buddhist and scientific methods of 
 investigating reality to be complementary, as are many of their 
 discoveries. Both traditions focus on the empirical and rational 
 exploration of reality, not on accepting beliefs out of blind faith. The
 Dalai Lama comments: “A general basic stance of Buddhism is that it is 
 inappropriate to hold a view that is logically inconsistent. This is 
 taboo. But even more taboo than holding a view that is logically 
 inconsistent, is holding a view that goes against direct experience.”
 This is consonant with an assertion attributed to the Buddha and 
 widely quoted in Tibetan Buddhism: “Monks, just as the wise accept gold 
 after testing it by heating, cutting, and rubbing it, so are my words to
 be accepted after examining them, but not out of respect for me.” A 
 3rd-century Indian Buddhist contemplative named Aryadeva claimed in a 
 classic treatise that there are just three qualities one must have to 
 venture onto the Buddhist path of inquiry: one must be perceptive and 
 unbiased, and simultaneously enthusiastic about putting the teachings to
 the test of experience.
 
 
 To my mind, the principal obstacle to a deep integration of Buddhist 
 insight and scientific discovery is the uncritical acceptance among many
 scientists—and increasingly the general public—of the metaphysical 
 principles of scientific materialism. The fundamental belief of this 
 scientific materialism is that the whole of reality consists only of 
 space-time and matter-energy, and their emergent properties. This 
 implies that the only true causation is physical causation, that there 
 are no nonphysical influences in the universe. When applied to human 
 existence, this worldview implies that subjective experience is either 
 physical—despite all evidence to the contrary—or doesn’t exist at all, 
 which is simply insulting to our intelligence. As the philosopher John 
 R. Searle states in his book The Rediscovery of the Mind, 'Earlier 
 materialists argued that there aren’t any such things as separate mental 
 phenomena, because mental phenomena are identical with brain states. More 
 recent materialists argue that there aren’t any such things as separate 
 mental phenomena because they are not identical
 with brain states. I find this pattern very revealing, and what it 
 reveals is an urge to get rid of mental phenomena at any cost'.
 
 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] MOQ HONESTY

[Ron Kulp]

 On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 Define the Good as a type of Form?  What an ABSOLUTE moron!  That's analogous 
 to defining God (which is really just another synonym - ultimately - for the 
 Good/Dynamic Quality).

Ron comments:
I have been pursuing this subject
For the past couple of months,
The history of defining Dynamic
Quality.
It's seems to pre-date Plato.
Parmenides, Pythagoras
And earlier. What struck me is
That the definitions hint at the
Fact that it can not be defined.
Every concept fails, even the most
Basic, like time and movement.
What is really interesting is how
The definition, which essentially states it's indefinability becomes
A reified concept in and of itself!

All of western culture is influenced
By the literal interpretation of this definition. 
It became the conceptualization 
Of God and the afterlife. When
It originally pointed to the mind
And it's inability to grasp the 
Un graspable. The theory of forms
Or the doctrine of ideas is the most
Famously misunderstood concept
In the history of humanity.

.
  
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] MOQ and science

[Ron Kulp]

 On Dec 14, 2014, at 8:25 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Idealism is realism fierce opponent.  It's not simply a matter of
 mutually exclusive it's a matter of mutually hostile.  And how the MoQ
 unites them... I have no idea except that so far the interpreters of the
 MOQ have no real conception of what idealism actually is.  

Ron sez:
I think what Pragmatism opposes
Is a particular brand of Idealism
John. I believe British Idealism
As it refers to existentialism and
Phenomenology.
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

[Ron Kulp]

 On Nov 27, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Dan comments:
 The term 'dynamic event' does not exist in Lila. The Quality event of
 ZMM is left behind. In addition, the term Dynamic Quality is
 consistently capitalized in Lila for a reason, or so I always thought,
 while static quality is not, again, for a reason. What Doorly appears
 to be doing is lumping both terms together under the umbrella of
 Quality, which in essence is correct, but the way he's approaching it
 ultimately leads to defining the Good.
 
 Anyway, I'll stop there to see what anyone thinks before and if
 proceeding further. It really is a great book, btw, though I do not
 happen to agree with some of Doorly's points,

Ron replies:
Although I have not read Doorly,
I can't help but to chime in on the topic of defining the Good.
As said before, once we define
SOM as the act, or the attempt
To define the Good, we open
Up the doors for anti-intellectual 
Claims.
As it seems Doorly is trying to convey
Art is the act of making meaning from
Experience.
We must carefully consider this before we attempt to define SOM.

Thanks Dan!



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

[Ron Kulp]

Ant,
I hesitate to generalize so broadly
When we mean that specific condition of modern western
Cultural tradition.
There are several historical markers
Of thought to consider from Platonism/Christian theology to
Descartes and 19th century physicalism/scientific objectivism.
Coupled With the current problems attributed
To it by a decline in pedagogical
Systems of a corporate nature.
The classification of SOM as one
Of several types of common logic traps that inhibit critical thinking
Practices would, in my opinion,
Render a large portion of any anti
Intellectual argument mounted as
Superfluous. Saving a lot of time in
Explanation.
-Ron

 On Nov 26, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 Dear all!,
 
 Nice to be back!  Anyway, I was thinking recently (after last month's MOQ 
 lecture at Liverpool University) that a definition of SOM might be any 
 metaphysics that, implicitly or explicitly, DEFINES the Good.   Any sensible 
 thoughts about this definition and how it might be improved will be 
 appreciated.
 
 Ant
 
 
 .
 
 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] MOQ is good. What is it good for?

[Ron Kulp]

 On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron said:
 I have been thinking long and hard about The attempt to recover religion from 
 The religious, (it seems to me to be
 The subject of concern) and I keep Going back and forth… .
 
 Andre:
 Can you elaborate a bit on this Ron? What exactly do you mean when you say ¨ 
 recover religion from the religious” ?

Ron:
I mean the recovery of the common core ideas and per renal wisdom
Found at the centre of all revealed religion.
But as Ant pointed out, that takes
A lot of education in an environment
That has become largely anti-intellectual in nature.
There is part of me that sees the necessity for it, then there is part
Of me that senses the futility.

 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] MOQ is good. What is it good for?

[Ron Kulp]

 On Oct 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 It is good to have a solid foundation from which to see, feel, hear and 
 argue. This is not dogma…it is realizing that words are simply pointers. And 
 it is important to get the words right. And once the words are in place they 
 are properly understood…in the context within which they receive their 
 fullest meaning and explanatory power

Ron:
I have been thinking long and hard about
The attempt to recover religion from
The religious, (it seems to me to be
The subject of concern) and I keep 
Going back and forth between the
Well meaning philosopher trying to
Link up their values in such a way
As to maintain as much of the old
Beliefs as they can while not compromising their philosophical
Integrity and the realization that
The old belief system only serves
To corrupt that understanding rendering the project futile and
Inhibitive.
I think, personally, one can link up
Religion with philosophy (particularly
Pirsigs) if they really understand the message. 

That's why agree with a lot of your
Post, if there is a problem with that
Ability to connect, then it's a sign
That perhaps we need to review our
Conceptions.

Thanks Andre
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] MOQ is good. What is it good for?

[Ron Kulp]

 Ant,
  I just want to thank you for your
Contribution. You are right, the discuss has really improved and has become a 
real learning Experience environment for myself at least.
I also wanted to remark on the high
Quality response regarding the thread
Title from Dave  B. and Arlo. And Dan. 
They all really clarified.
It's inspiring, nice work
Very well met.

One more thing Ant, that
Last post about Plato and
Greek tragedy, was a wine
Inspired enthusiastic rant
About that Stanford article 
Essentially saying thanks for
The link!
Yea, I know, that's why I don't do
Well at parties. People look at me
And say  why are you telling me all
Of this?
Sometimes my head is on fire over
The stuff I read, you know?
My head is on fire yet the wood
Must be chopped and the water
Must be carried.
So while chopping wood and carrying
Water my mind drifts toward the recovery of mysticism from the mystics and 
priests and repurpose
It as the source of scientific wonder
And rational justification for belief.
 But who am I kidding, you would
Have to to be a hell of a rhetorician 
To sell that notion.
Imagine, millions never taught to
Think for themselves suddenly realizing it's all been just one epic
Misunderstanding.

Ok I'm doing it again.

Thanks again Ant and everyone else

-Ron 

.
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] Plato imitation

[Ron Kulp]

 On Aug 26, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 Otherwise, I should note that Patrick Doorly points out in his MOQ text THE 
 TRUTH ABOUT ART that Plato's regard of the fine arts as being largely 
 imitative was not really challenged in Western Academia until Ernst Gombrich 
 wrote his famous (infamous?) essay about a hobby horse in 1950.  A hobby 
 horse, as Gombrich points out, does not imitate a horse (a wild horse does 
 not have a wheel for instance!) but rather acts as a substitute.

Ron:
What I got from the Stanford piece,
Was that Plato was aiming at Greek
Tragedy mainly. In that respect,
He aimed specifically at stereotypes
And characeture . It was all about creating the best forms in the ideal
Republic ( keeping in mind the dialogue began with the question
Of knowing a man, that you best
Know him through the society 
He participates in.)
Long and short, they didn't go in
For satire at the worst and racial stereotyping at best, probably would frown 
on impersonators, and impostors. As I understand it 
Credited with the decline of Greek 
Tragedy .


.
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] Academic philosophy

[Ron Kulp]

Arlo,
It seems to me the straw man is mostly constructed from the confusion between 
what scholarship
Means and what is termed academic
Dogma. Those who attack scholarship as academic rigidity
Are failing to make that distinction.

 On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:15 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
 
 [JC]
 #2:  I said I never read anyone who takes philosophy personally [look of 
 great distaste] or confuses philosophy with things that matter in their 
 little lives.
 
 #1:Right.  If they want to talk about philosophy as if it matters personally 
 they need to get out of the profession or at least go back to school.
 
 [Arlo]
 I imagine this is just a Platonic-style dialogue, and, here, the academics 
 are the dreaded Sophists who are creatively demonized by unfair, and 
 largely fictional, dialogues. I say this, mostly, because its absurd. Every 
 philosophy professor I have EVER had has gone out of his way to make 
 philosophy personal. The constant theme was this matters, this effects your 
 life, this shapes who you are, this is PERSONAL!. It was precisely abstract, 
 irrelevant, 'mind play' that they were arguing against. Good god, imagine 
 trying to understand Adorno's Minima Moralia from an impersonal perspective. 
 Imagine trying to teach Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy without constant 
 recourse to the immediate, lived life of the students.
 
 No, either he's using a completely unrepresentational dialogue to slander all 
 of academia, or he's writing his own demons into his narrative. 
 
 The fact that you buy into this man's psychological rage really demonstrates 
 how little real experience you've had in the academy. Or maybe, you're 
 co-opting an damn the academics attitude to assuage your own personal 
 failures as not your own, but of an inflexible and sociopathic institution. 
 
 Are there more rigid (but still plastic) boundaries around the academy? Sure. 
 There HAS to be. Is it entirely perfect and entirely fair to everyone 
 immediately? No, of course not. But the alternative is an uninformed bazaar 
 that can not distinguish at all between flat-earth theory and the theory 
 of relativity. And, let's be honest, our cultural and intellectual libraries 
 are enormous. Even 'favored' philosophers within the academy, like Nietzsche, 
 get barely any screen-time at all. At the undergraduate level, students are 
 lucky if they hear his name, let alone read select writings. Foucault? Until 
 you're in certain graduate programs you probably won't even hear his name.
 
 The larger, and more devastating, problem with the academy is that it has 
 turned into little more than a glorified jobs program. Does it bother me that 
 Pirsig doesn't warrant his own course in our philosophy program? Absolutely. 
 But it bothers me more that even the philosophers that DO are relegated to 
 irrelevant status in our quest to fulfill an increasingly singular capital 
 goal. The problem is not with the philosopher-academics, but with the 
 businessperson-deans that dictate curricular and degree structures- and the 
 capital culture that wants our graduates to be little more than skilled 
 workers, not critically-thoughtful, agenic beings.
 
 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 and theArt of Religion

[Ron Kulp]

W

 On Sep 3, 2014, at 5:32 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Jc:
 
 Rhetoric is an art, Aristotle began, because it can be reduced to a
 rational system of order.
 That just left Phædrus aghast. Stopped. He’d been prepared to decode
 messages of great subtlety, systems of great complexity in order
 to understand the deeper inner meaning of Aristotle, claimed by many to be
 the greatest philosopher of all time. And then to get hit,
 right off, straight in the face, with an asshole statement like that! It
 really shook him.
 
 And here we are, less than 50 years latter, Andre-Buchanan can utter the
 same idea, dressed in an MOQ blanket, and nobody on this forum but I can
 see the great error, the huge mistake that is.  A statement that violates
 the very heart and spirit of the MoQ, That any sort of static pattern holds
 the keys on all there is to say. Also contradictory to the doctrine of
 pragmatism and radical empiricism.   All is never said.  Conceptualization
 is subordinate to experience

Ron:
I think it is important to realize just what Aristotle meant by the term
Art. For Aristotle art was synonymous with intelligibility.
Therefore rhetoric is an art because
It renders the unintelligible, intelligible. Art is meaning.
It took some time for Phaedrus
To realize this for himself but by
The end of the story he gets it and
Through that journey we are also
Expected to get it.


Get 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] Zen and theArt of Religion

[Ron Kulp]

 On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 W
 
 On Sep 3, 2014, at 5:32 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Jc:
 
 Rhetoric is an art, Aristotle began, because it can be reduced to a
 rational system of order.
 That just left Phædrus aghast. Stopped. He’d been prepared to decode
 messages of great subtlety, systems of great complexity in order
 to understand the deeper inner meaning of Aristotle, claimed by many to be
 the greatest philosopher of all time. And then to get hit,
 right off, straight in the face, with an asshole statement like that! It
 really shook him.
 
 And here we are, less than 50 years latter, Andre-Buchanan can utter the
 same idea, dressed in an MOQ blanket, and nobody on this forum but I can
 see the great error, the huge mistake that is.  A statement that violates
 the very heart and spirit of the MoQ, That any sort of static pattern holds
 the keys on all there is to say. Also contradictory to the doctrine of
 pragmatism and radical empiricism.   All is never said.  Conceptualization
 is subordinate to experience
 
 Ron:
 I think it is important to realize just what Aristotle meant by the term
 Art. For Aristotle art was synonymous with intelligibility.
 Therefore rhetoric is an art because
 It renders the unintelligible, intelligible. Art is meaning.
 It took some time for Phaedrus
 To realize this for himself but by
 The end of the story he gets it and
 Through that journey we are also
 Expected to get it.
 
Ron adds:
This connects up to religion and
Hopefully what you are attempting 
To aim at.
Religion is an art in much the same
Way as it renders meaning from
Experience but in this context the term  belief wields greater power
In it's stead. 
When Willie J. Spoke of belief he connected it to the term temperament . 
Which has lead me
To think that in order to understand 
More about temperaments and how
It shapes belief we begin to tread
On the ground of psychology.

.
 
 
 .
 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] Sociopathy (wasRe: Step Two)

[Ron Kulp]

But a stick just doesn't up and hit 
Something all by itself, your excluding the observer. 

 On Aug 31, 2014, at 4:05 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com 
 wrote:
 
 All
 
 Ant
 
 The main task is to objectively declare - How to hit the shared attention 
 with a stick without nodding patterns of the biological level.
 
 JA
 
 The method is the same as Descartes used. Measure something by something of 
 the same kind. 
 
 Interesting things occur if we are using something else. Vote for a stick to 
 be a member of the hockey team.
 
 ”I’m using the chicken to measure it”
 
 Jan-Anders
 
 
 30 aug 2014 kl. 21:10 Ant McWatt wrote:
 
 On Aug 30, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson jananderses at 
 telia.com wrote:
 
 Hit a shared attention. (Where is it? No sound.
 
 Hit the teamship of a football team. No response.
 
 Hit a religious faith. No response again.
 
 Ron then commented August 30th:
 
 The test of shared attention.
 Hit a member of a rugby team
 With a stick the entire team will
 Stomp a mud hole in your ass and
 Walk it dry.
 
 Verbally abuse the team ship of that
 Rugby team to their face, and that
 Rugby team will stomp you again 
 And the next words you utter will be
 Muffled by your own ass.
 
 
 Ant McWatt comments:
 
 Ron,
 
 You know I think that your comments here were a little cynical... To be 
 fair to Jan-Anders, I think his claim about shared attention and social 
 groups such as rugby football teams really should be EMPIRICALLY tested to 
 see who is right or wrong here.  It's a critical issue.  I will therefore 
 issue an open invitation to J-A (or anyone like minded) to share a Saturday 
 afternoon watching my local rugby team.  As long as I can film all the 
 substantive events on HD film, keep the copyright and sell it as 
 Jan-Anders tests out Ant's rubgy's team's 'shared attention' then we will 
 no doubt have a deal.  I suggest the ideal time for this empirical 
 experiment is a few hours after my teamlose a match to our closest rivals 
 and have downed about eight pints each.  How does that sound?
 
 Yours big-heartedly, as ever,
 
 Ant  ;-)
 
 
 
 .
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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] Sociopathy (wasRe: Step Two)

[Ron Kulp]

 On Aug 30, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com 
 wrote:
 
 Hit a shared attention. (Where is it? No sound.
 
 Hit the teamship of a football team. No response.
 
 Hit a religious faith. No response again.

Ron:
The test of shared attention.
Hit a member of a rugby team
With a stick the entire team will
Stomp a mud hole in your ass and
Walk it dry.
Verbally abuse the team ship of that
Rugby team to their face, and that
Rugby team will stomp you again 
And the next words you utter will be
Muffled by your own ass.


.
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] Rhetoric and Madness

[Ron Kulp]

Thanks Arlo,
Hopefully it will be read by those
Who think there is an oppressive
Dogmatism imposed on the MD.
It probably will not make an impression but hey, here's to trying,
-Ron

 On Aug 26, 2014, at 12:44 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
 
 [Ron]
 All (especially the true MOQers of the Lila squad) I found this paper some 
 years ago, I don't know who authored it but it's quite a nice paper. ... 
 Rhetoric and Madness: Robert Pirsig's Inquiry into Values.
 
 [Arlo]
 This article appeared in the Southern Speech Communication Journal, Volume 
 43, Issue 1, 1977. The author is Scott Consigny. 
 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] Rhetoric and Madness

[Ron Kulp]

All (especially the true MOQers of the Lila squad)
I found this paper some years ago, I don't know who
authored it but it's quite a nice paper. They were not
influenced by the MD nor (to my knowledge) were they coerced
into their interpretation by Dave Buchanan, Arlo Bensinger,
Dan Glover or Horse.



Rhetoric and Madness: Robert Pirsig's Inquiry into Values 

Confronting crises of technological annihilation and personal madness, Robert 
Pirsig finds each to be a manifestation of a deeper crisis of Reason. In 
response) he suggests an alternative to our current paradigm of rationality, 
the art of motorcycle maintenance. By showing that our understanding and 
performance derive from our emotional and evaluative commitments, he challenges 
the cultural commonplace which construes subjective states as distortions of 
objective reality. In so doing, he asserts that wholeness or sanity may be 
achieved only through passionate caring, and an awareness and acceptance of 
how our emotions and values shape our experiences. Further, he shows that 
technology, a manifestation of our values, may be controlled only through 
emotional and moral commitment. A restorative rhetoric, on Pirsig's analysis 
is, then, one in which the passions and values are recognized as the very 
ground of being in and interpreting the world. 

The crisis of reason 

As he begins his Chautauqua, Robert Pirsig finds himself in a twofold crisis. 
He characterizes the public dimension of the crisis as arising in large part 
from the technological fragmentation of nature and man. Having transformed 
nature from a field of daffodils into a field for its own potential 
appropriation, technology, as Marshall McLuhan has noted, now also shapes and 
controls the scale of human association and action (McLuhan 8). Seemingly 
indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology 
increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and 
even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our 
lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often 
physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media personalities than 
we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left 
alone by our technology, we are increasingly
lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own 
feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological 
world. Like Bergman's intellectual illiterates, we are so uneducated about 
our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we break down, 
and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we 
learn, our feelings distort our objective perceptions, and thus prevent us 
from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls 
that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get 
along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated 
from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. 
S. Eliot's phrase, dissociation of sensibility. 

Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced 
fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or 
madness. Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and 
underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier 
self, whom he now calls Phaedrus, had gone mad as a result of a search for 
Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. [1] Pursuing the 
ghost of reason through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, 
Phaedrus found Reason to be emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and 
spiritually empty (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an 
alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when 
he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting 
figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness. 

The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to 
act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends 
John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the death force which they see in 
technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot 
effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism which 
leaves them impotently resentful of technology. But if flight is not a 
solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and 
to respond as if one were merely encountering another problem to be solved 
with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which 
constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels 
classicists, people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we 
simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles 
simply construct a 

Re: [MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Ron Kulp]

John,
It seems like it would explain
A lot at first, but the longer I
Think on it the more confining 
It becomes. 
Still mulling it over ..
-Ron


 On Aug 23, 2014, at 1:49 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 My line of thought was triggered by Jan-Anders inquiry into the Step Two,
 Horse, and as such is not as ridiculous as you are putting forth.
 In the earliest human communities, and to the American Indian, Religion in
 the form of do's and don't, myth and meaning, was EVERYTHING and it guided
 every step of their lives.
 It takes no great leap then to call their social patterns, religious.
 
 We who live in a more enlightened age, associate religion with superstition
 and foolishness but I say that in our blanket denigration of earlier
 ancestors, we are ignoring the unproven assumptions by which we live and
 take on faith.
 
 But I see that nobody wants to engage with this idea, so I'll shut up about
 it.
 
 John
 
 
 On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
 
 And religion is one part of the social level not it's entirety - or are
 you as blind to that as Bo is blind to anything other than subjects and
 objects being the whole of the intellectual level? At the moment you are
 making as much sense as Bo - possibly less!
 
 Horse
 
 
 
 
 On 23/08/2014 01:27, John Carl wrote:
 
 Horse,
 
 
 
 
 On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
 
 John
 
 Whether you're serious or not is irrelevant. Saying the Social level is
 the 'Religious Level' has as much credence as saying the Intellectual
 level
 is the 'Individual' level or consists entirely of Subjects and Objects!
 Belief in sky pixies or gods or god with some sort of mysterious
 creationist type mythology (which covers the majority of religions) is
 pure
 social level patterns.
 It's basically hogwash with holes in it!
 
 Horse
 
 
 I believe that's my exact point?  That Belief in sky pixies or gods
 or god
 with some sort of mysterious creationist type mythology (which covers the
 majority of religions) is pure social level patterns
 
 Pure social level indeed!
 
 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
 --
 
 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
 
 
 
 -- 
 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] Dr McWatt's advice to his unknown student from a remote spot of the world.

[Ron Kulp]

Any had said:

 The only things not included within the realm of the four static patterns 
 (and this is the important, critical point that Plato got wrong) are the 
 (essentially) formless Beauty, Love, and the Good.  They can only be 
 understood by metaphor in the form of poetry, fiction and music.
 
 (In fact as a young women, you might be interested to know that not only 
 would Plato have banned all poets from his ideal Republic but also all women,
 all musical instruments, most modern technology and, for some weird reason,
 sounds of water too.)
 
 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/

Ron:
I have been reading and digesting 
The Stanford Essay on Plato -aesthetics.
Interesting enough, to be sure, it
More clearly states after a more careful reading, that Plato was
Banning imitation in poetry and
Art. The mimicking of women
And musical instruments and such
In artistic performance.
It recalled the painting  this is not
A pipe.
Socrates returns to his analogy between poetry and painting. If you are partly 
taken in by a painting's tricked-up table apparition but you partly spot the 
falseness of it, which part of you does which? The soul's rational impulse must 
be the part that knows the painting is not a real table. But Book 4 established 
one fundamental principle: When the soul inclines in more than one direction, 
this conflict represents the work of more than one faculty or part of the soul 
(436b). So being taken in by an optical or artistic illusion must be the 
activity of some part of the soul distinct from reason.

It sounds to me that what Plato
Really wants to ban is reification.
He wants to ban stereotypes,
Characitures . He thinks art and
Poetry (and the performance)
Is best when it deals with the
Empirical.
Imitation, like worshiping graven
Images, encapsulates, and renders
Static the now of experience.

Notice especially the terminology in Book 9. The tyrant is “at the third 
remove” from the oligarch, his pleasure “a third-place idol [tritôi eidôlôi]” 
compared to the truth,alêtheia, of the oligarchic soul's pleasure (587c). The 
oligarch's soul in turn stands third below the “kingly man [tou basilikou]” 
(587d). Only ten pages later Book 10 will call the imitator “third from the 
king [basileôs] and from the truth [alêtheias]” (597e; cf. 602c). The language 
in Book 10 brings Book 9's equation of base pleasures with illusory ones into 
its attack on art. If Book 10 can show that an art form fosters interest in 
illusions it will have gone a long way toward showing that the art form keeps 
company with irrational desires.
But Plato does not confine himself to reasoning by analogy from painting to 
verse. He recognizes that analogies encourage lazy reasoning. So Socrates 
proposes looking at imitative poetry on its own terms, not just as a painting 
made of words (603b–c). He exerts himself to show that poetry presents false 
representations of virtue, often drawn from popular opinion about morality 
(Moss 2007, 437), and that because of their falseness those images nourish 
irrational motives until all but the finest souls in the audience lose control 
over themselves.

The kind of art Plato wants to ban In his republic  seem to be arts like 
Commercials, tv shows (reality tv Especially) advertising, propaganda

And the unrealistic imitative images

Of female beauty that objectify 

Women as sex symbols.

Also, it seems, that religion would

Also be banned:

Imitation works an effect worse than ignorance, not merely teaching nothing 
but engendering a positive perverted preference for ignorance over knowledge. 
Plato often observes that the ignorant prefer to remain as they are.

What seems to be the most 

Interesting topic where poetry 

And art is concerned is divine

Inspiration (dynamic quality)  

Concerning the art of persuasion.

The topic of the Phaedrus.
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] Dr McWatt's advice to his unknown student from a remote spot of the world.

[Ron Kulp]

 On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 Correction 
 Ant had said:
 
 The only things not included within the realm of the four static patterns 
 (and this is the important, critical point that Plato got wrong) are the 
 (essentially) formless Beauty, Love, and the Good.  They can only be 
 understood by metaphor in the form of poetry, fiction and music.
 
 (In fact as a young women, you might be interested to know that not only 
 would Plato have banned all poets from his ideal Republic but also all 
 women,
 all musical instruments, most modern technology and, for some weird reason,
 sounds of water too.)
 
 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/
 
 Ron:
 I have been reading and digesting 
 The Stanford Essay on Plato -aesthetics.
 Interesting enough, to be sure, it
 More clearly states after a more careful reading, that Plato was
 Banning imitation in poetry and
 Art. The mimicking of women
 And musical instruments and such
 In artistic performance.
 It recalled the painting  this is not
 A pipe.
 Socrates returns to his analogy between poetry and painting. If you are 
 partly taken in by a painting's tricked-up table apparition but you partly 
 spot the falseness of it, which part of you does which? The soul's rational 
 impulse must be the part that knows the painting is not a real table. But 
 Book 4 established one fundamental principle: When the soul inclines in more 
 than one direction, this conflict represents the work of more than one 
 faculty or part of the soul (436b). So being taken in by an optical or 
 artistic illusion must be the activity of some part of the soul distinct from 
 reason.
 
 It sounds to me that what Plato
 Really wants to ban is reification.
 He wants to ban stereotypes,
 Characitures . He thinks art and
 Poetry (and the performance)
 Is best when it deals with the
 Empirical.
 Imitation, like worshiping graven
 Images, encapsulates, and renders
 Static the now of experience.
 
 Notice especially the terminology in Book 9. The tyrant is “at the third 
 remove” from the oligarch, his pleasure “a third-place idol [tritôi eidôlôi]” 
 compared to the truth,alêtheia, of the oligarchic soul's pleasure (587c). The 
 oligarch's soul in turn stands third below the “kingly man [tou basilikou]” 
 (587d). Only ten pages later Book 10 will call the imitator “third from the 
 king [basileôs] and from the truth [alêtheias]” (597e; cf. 602c). The 
 language in Book 10 brings Book 9's equation of base pleasures with illusory 
 ones into its attack on art. If Book 10 can show that an art form fosters 
 interest in illusions it will have gone a long way toward showing that the 
 art form keeps company with irrational desires.
 But Plato does not confine himself to reasoning by analogy from painting to 
 verse. He recognizes that analogies encourage lazy reasoning. So Socrates 
 proposes looking at imitative poetry on its own terms, not just as a painting 
 made of words (603b–c). He exerts himself to show that poetry presents false 
 representations of virtue, often drawn from popular opinion about morality 
 (Moss 2007, 437), and that because of their falseness those images nourish 
 irrational motives until all but the finest souls in the audience lose 
 control over themselves.
 
 The kind of art Plato wants to ban In his republic  seem to be arts like 
 Commercials, tv shows (reality tv Especially) advertising, propaganda
 
 And the unrealistic imitative images
 
 Of female beauty that objectify 
 
 Women as sex symbols.
 
 Also, it seems, that religion would
 
 Also be banned:
 
 Imitation works an effect worse than ignorance, not merely teaching nothing 
 but engendering a positive perverted preference for ignorance over knowledge. 
 Plato often observes that the ignorant prefer to remain as they are.
 
 What seems to be the most 
 
 Interesting topic where poetry 
 
 And art is concerned is divine
 
 Inspiration (dynamic quality)  
 
 Concerning the art of persuasion.
 
 The topic of the Phaedrus.
 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] Dr McWatt's advice to his unknown student from a remote spot of the world.

[Ron Kulp]

 On Aug 21, 2014, at 5:25 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron said to Ant:
 
 The Stanford Essay on Plato - aesthetics ...clearly states after a more 
 careful reading, that Plato was banning imitation in poetry and art. The 
 mimicking of women and musical instruments and such in artistic performance. 
 It recalled the painting this is not a pipe. It sounds to me that what 
 Plato really wants to ban is reification. He wants to ban stereotypes, 
 characitures. He thinks art and poetry (and the performance) is best when it 
 deals with the empirical. Imitation, like worshiping graven images, 
 encapsulates, and renders
 static the now of experience.
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 
 I think Plato's attitude toward poetry and art has to be understood as a 
 feature of his overall view, which is extremely anti-empirical. He is the 
 godfather of rationalism. What's really real, for Plato, lies beyond mere 
 appearance. The Forms, ideals that somehow exist outside of empirical 
 reality, are the real thing and everything down in this dirty old phenomenal 
 world (not just art and poetry and unoriginal copying) is a pale imitation of 
 these Forms. The empirical world, Plato thought, is not to be trusted. In the 
 famous allegory, the empirical world is the world of mere appearance, nothing 
 but empty shadows on a cave wall. 
 
 
 So art was denigrated as an imitation of a copy of the Form. It was 
 considered to be mighty low indeed, especially when compared to the rational 
 understanding of philosophers. The radical empiricism of James, Dewey, and 
 Pirsig reverses this so that empirical reality is primary and ideas are 
 always secondary. There are no Forms and there is no reality beyond 
 appearance - or if there were we could never know anything about it because 
 appearance is the only reality we can ever have access to.

Ron:
What I'm taking issue with is
That the article supplied did
Not seem to support the claim
Anthony made. The article is
A good read.
What is interesting is Stanford's 
Take on the subject. Supplied
By Ant:
 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/

The subject needs careful looking into. If perennially footnoted by later 
philosophers Plato has also been perennially thumbnailed. Clichés accompany his 
name. It is worth going slowly through the main topics of Plato's 
aesthetics—not in the search for some surprising theory unlike anything that 
has been said, but so that background shading and details may emerge, for a 
result that perhaps resembles the customary synopses of his thought as a human 
face resembles the cartoon reduction of it.

Many passages in Plato associate a Form with beauty: Cratylus 439c;Euthydemus 
301a; Laws 655c;Phaedo 65d, 75d, 100b; Phaedrus254b; Parmenides 130b; 
Philebus15a; Republic 476b, 493e, 507b. Plato mentions beauty as often as he 
speaks of any property that admits of philosophical conceptualization, and for 
which a Form therefore exists. Thanks to the features of Forms as such, this 
must be a beauty, something properly called beauty, whose nature can be 
articulated without recourse to the natures of particular beautiful things. 
(See especially Phaedo 79a and Phaedrus247c on properties of this Form.)

Beauty is Plato's example of a Form so frequently because it bears every mark 
of the Forms. It is an evaluative concept as much as justice and courage are, 
and it suffers from disputes over its meaning as much as they do. The Theory of 
Forms mainly exists in order to guarantee stable referents for disputed 
evaluative terms; so if anything needs a Form, beauty does, and it will have a 
Form if any property does.

In general, a Platonic Form F differs from an individual F thing in that Fmay 
be predicated univocally of the Form: The Form F is F. An individual F thing by 
comparison both is and is not F; in this sense the same property F can only be 
predicated equivocally of the individual (e.g. Republic 479a–c). Plato's 
analysis of equivocally Findividuals (Cratylus 439d–e,Symposium 211a) recalls 
observations that everyone makes about beautiful objects. They fade with time; 
require an offsetting ugly detail; elicit disagreements among observers; lose 
their beauty outside their context (adult shoes on children's feet). Odd 
numbers may fail to be odd in some hard-to-explain way, but the ways in which 
beautiful things fall short of their perfection are obvious to unphilosophical 
admirers.

Furthermore, physical beauty makes the process known in Plato's dialogues as 
anamnêsis or recollection more plausible than it is for most other properties. 
The philosophical merit of things that are equivocally F is that they come 
bearing signs of their incompleteness, so that the inquisitive mind wants to 
know more (Republic 523c–524d). But whereas soft or large items inspire 
questions in minds of an abstract bent, and the perception of examples of 
justice or self-control presupposes moral development, beautiful things strike 

[MD] O Captain, my Captain

[Ron Kulp]

O Captain my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weathered every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vesselgrim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up--for you the flag is flung for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You've fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchored safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
-Walt Witman 

Ron:
When those lovers of wisdom,
Those midwives of enlightenment,
Pass to memory, it strengthens
The mythological archetype.
Their passing highlights the importance of passing that cultural torch . 
Walt Witmans poem, penned 
At the death of Abraham Lincoln,
Captures that threshold crossed
And that daunting proposal of carrying on that light.
This myth, holds a very high place
In our culture. The Socrates, the
Obi-WAN the Gandalf the Jesus
All inspire a love for wisdom.
It is a powerful archetype that
Needs to be highlighted and
Reflected apon.
Often that love is overshadowed 
By the love of the archetype.
  

To Bob Pirsig,
The embodied archetype.
You inspire love in the highest.

.
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 two

[Ron Kulp]

On Aug 12, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

 On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Ant McWatt wrote:
 
 It's a subtle SOM habit (certainly for a Westerner) to think of rocks and 
 trees and all the other inorganic  biological patterns as somehow being MORE 
 real than social  intellectual patterns but Northrop shows us this is 
 scientifically  logically incorrect.  This is why I think the MOQ 
 perspective - though unnatural at first for someone brought up in an SOM 
 dominated culture - is a more coherent and therefore BETTER one to hold.
 
 http://moq.robertpirsig.org/
 
 
 Ron Kulp commented on the above, August 12th 2014:
 
 That's another useful term, to hold a perspective. In land surveying When 
 we try to give meaning to descriptions, we say we Hold certain physical and 
 abstract Evidence for particular reasons. Our reasons are subjected to peer
 And legal Review. Where am I going with this?
 
 I guess I see a lot of similarities With orientation, when we hold 
 Particular values for particular reasons we orient the way we Think and 
 perceive, we lend a greater Broader meaning to the mosaic of Value in 
 experience. In boundary survey the term  to hold is an act Based on careful 
 reflection, the act Of reference or source of belief.
 
 Ant McWatt comments:
 
 Ron, I didn't know that land surveyors used that phrase to hold as well. 
 Interesting coincidence...  Anyway, I think a helpful way of looking at this 
 issue is to use the map analogies introduced by Ron DiSanto in the first 
 chapter of the Guidebook to ZMM:
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/26/books/books-of-the-times-retracing-the-tire-prints-on-a-philosophical-journey.html
 
 
 SOM is a particular map of the Human World, the MOQ is another one as is 
 Roman Catholicism, Atheism and the many other isms that people have 
 invented over the eons.  The MOQ is relatively a new map so (thanks to the 
 genius of its creator, Robert Pirsig) takes into account many aspects of the 
 contemporary world (from using technology to East Asian philosophy to the 
 nature of celebrity) that older maps DON'T take proper account of or, worse 
 still, miss all together.  
 
 Does this make sense?
 
 Ron:
Sure does, what I think I find most
Interesting is that the MOQ strikes
Me as a map makers guide also.
Just as in the mapping profession,
There are many kinds of maps used
For differing purposes.. I just notice
How heavy in philosophy the art of measure is steeped in my daily grind.
I don't get out much.
 
 
 .
 
 
 
 
 
 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 two

[Ron Kulp]

 On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
   It's a subtle SOM habit (certainly for a Westerner) to think of rocks and 
 trees and all the other inorganic  biological patterns as somehow being MORE 
 real than social  intellectual patterns but Northrop shows us this is 
 scientifically  logically incorrect.  This is why I think the MOQ 
 perspective - though unnatural at first for someone brought up in an SOM 
 dominated culture - is a more coherent and therefore BETTER one to hold.

Ron:
That's another useful term, to hold a perspective. In land surveying When we 
try to give meaning to
descriptions, we say we
Hold certain physical and abstract
Evidence for particular reasons. 
Our reasons are subjected to peer
And legal Review. 
Where am I going with this?
I guess I see a lot of similarities 
With orientation, when we hold 
Particular values for particular reasons we orient the way we
Think and perceive, we lend a greater
Broader meaning to the mosaic of
Value in experience. In boundary survey the term to hold is an act
Based on careful reflection, the act
Of reference or source of belief.

.
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] Discretion

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:03 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Ant McWatt wrote:
 
 This is going to lose some people here (and no doubt elsewhere!) but one of 
 the primary reasons that the MOQ can be so difficult to pin down for a 
 traditional Western intellectual is its basis on the logic of the Tetralemma, 
 the four pronged logic that East Asian philosophies (certainly Buddhist and 
 Taoist traditions) use rather than the syllogistic logic of Aristotle's which 
 is used by nearly every Western philosopher that you can read today.  The 
 latter are still largely unaware that East Asian logic can operate in two 
 contradictory contexts while syllogistic logic can operate (or presumes) that 
 there is only one.  I guess you call the latter the world of everyday 
 affairs and is what all the static quality patterns in the MOQ refer to.  
 
 
 
 Ron replied:
 
 I disagree, I maintain that The basis of MOQ Rests on the idea that which 
 does Not have value, does not exist Which I believe corresponds with 
 Aristotle, the question does not lay Apon whether or not something is or Is 
 not, rather, it rests on whether or not it has meaning  Pragmatically 
 speaking.
 
 
 dmb says:
 I think there is no need to disagree, Ron, because these are not mutually 
 exclusive ideas. If I understand it, Pirsig's statement (that which does not 
 have value, does not exist) can be understood in terms of the two contexts 
 described by Ant (conventional static realities and the ultimate 
 realities). Conventional realities (static quality) come into existence 
 because they have value and the ultimate reality (DQ) is the source of that 
 value. They exist in a relationship of continual becoming, which we like to 
 think of as an ongoing evolutionary process. Because the static forms have a 
 limited life span and are secondary to the ultimate reality, we say they have 
 no essential being or no primary ontological status. 
 I'm not sure how helpful it is to explain this with four-pronged logic, 
 however. Unless the notion of two contexts is grasped first, in fact, it's 
 not going to make much sense at all. Fortunately, Paul wrote a great paper 
 explaining some of the differences and distinctions between the two contexts. 
 It unpacks what the tetralemma condenses, so to speak. Somebody will remember 
 the title and I'll bet it posted on Ant's website. 
 
Ron:
Thanks for clarifying Dave. I didn't
See much practical use for the four
Prong logic eitherin light of contradictory statements. It may
Seem contradictory to the uninitiated but as far as practical
Useful meaningful statements, contradictory statements are meaningless 
statements unless
Of course they are pointing to that
Ultimate flux of experience, but why
Have a logic? it's useless and
Meaningless and only serves to confuse and generate fallacies.
Plus it gets used to justify nonsense.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 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] Discretion

[Ron Kulp]

Dave,
I guess what I'm saying is that
In the flow if experience ideas
Like ultimate ontological status
Seem to be rationalized.
Empirically speaking.
In other words it seems to me to
Be a superfluous assertion.

-Ron

Thanks for pointing me at that paper




 On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:03 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Ant McWatt wrote:
 
 This is going to lose some people here (and no doubt elsewhere!) but one of 
 the primary reasons that the MOQ can be so difficult to pin down for a 
 traditional Western intellectual is its basis on the logic of the Tetralemma, 
 the four pronged logic that East Asian philosophies (certainly Buddhist and 
 Taoist traditions) use rather than the syllogistic logic of Aristotle's which 
 is used by nearly every Western philosopher that you can read today.  The 
 latter are still largely unaware that East Asian logic can operate in two 
 contradictory contexts while syllogistic logic can operate (or presumes) that 
 there is only one.  I guess you call the latter the world of everyday 
 affairs and is what all the static quality patterns in the MOQ refer to.  
 
 
 
 Ron replied:
 
 I disagree, I maintain that The basis of MOQ Rests on the idea that which 
 does Not have value, does not exist Which I believe corresponds with 
 Aristotle, the question does not lay Apon whether or not something is or Is 
 not, rather, it rests on whether or not it has meaning  Pragmatically 
 speaking.
 
 
 dmb says:
 I think there is no need to disagree, Ron, because these are not mutually 
 exclusive ideas. If I understand it, Pirsig's statement (that which does not 
 have value, does not exist) can be understood in terms of the two contexts 
 described by Ant (conventional static realities and the ultimate 
 realities). Conventional realities (static quality) come into existence 
 because they have value and the ultimate reality (DQ) is the source of that 
 value. They exist in a relationship of continual becoming, which we like to 
 think of as an ongoing evolutionary process. Because the static forms have a 
 limited life span and are secondary to the ultimate reality, we say they have 
 no essential being or no primary ontological status. 
 I'm not sure how helpful it is to explain this with four-pronged logic, 
 however. Unless the notion of two contexts is grasped first, in fact, it's 
 not going to make much sense at all. Fortunately, Paul wrote a great paper 
 explaining some of the differences and distinctions between the two contexts. 
 It unpacks what the tetralemma condenses, so to speak. Somebody will remember 
 the title and I'll bet it posted on Ant's website. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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] Discretion

[Ron Kulp]

That's horrible my thoughts go out
To John and his family.

 On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:21 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ant,
 
 Good to hear from you! 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.
 
 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 Dan, John C and all!
 
 Well man... it was a dreadful flight so honey disconnect the phone...
 
 Been away so long I hardly knew the place
 
 
 On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:04 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Jc: It has taken me a while, but I think I understand better what
 James meant by immediate experience. One thing for sure, immediate
 experience requires Radical Empiricism, as DQ requires the MOQ. But
 more on that later.
 
 Dan:
 Dynamic Quality and immediate experience are both intellectual terms
 pointing to that which cannot be quantified. The terms themselves may
 require explanations, however.
 Jc: That's right. All terms only have meaning to the extent that
 they've been fully explained. Full explanation is the business of the
 meta-physician.
 
 Dan replied July 15th:
 
 I do not believe there can ever be a full explanation of Dynamic
 Quality and experience.
 
 Ant comments:
 
 Well Pirsig says somewhere (in LILA, chapter 9 probably) that the MOQ is 
 actually a contradiction in terms because it claims to be a metaphysics 
 (which as John points out should ideally define all the terms it uses though 
 I doubt any term can be FULLY explained to exhausation) but with a central 
 undefined term.  As we know Bob calls this Dynamic Quality but The Tao 
 or No-thingness or even his near final Unpatterned Quality (as opposed 
 to Patterned Quality) are thought to be equivalents by him and such MOQ 
 scholars such as myself.
 
 Dan:
 Sure... so far as intellectual terms pointing at the ineffable.
 
 Ant:
 If you read a book such as John Blofeld's fascinating account (Taoist 
 Mystery  Magic originally published in 1973) of his time as an 
 English-Chinese translator during the 1930s when he visited all these 
 ancient Chinese Taoist monasteries (before the 1948 Uncultural Revolution 
 destroyed most of them and the wisdom contained within, you can begin to 
 understand why Pirsig and myself think this is the case. Pirsig thought the 
 latter book pointed out some great mystic truths but you will have to read 
 it for yourself to see why.
 
 Dan:
 Sounds worth a read. I will order it as soon as I scrape together a few 
 dollars.
 
 Ant:
 This is going to lose some people here (and no doubt elsewhere!) but one of 
 the primary reasons that the MOQ can be so difficult to pin down for a 
 traditional Western intellectual is its basis on the logic of the 
 Tetralemma, the four pronged logic that East Asian philosophies (certainly 
 Buddhist and Taoist traditions) use rather than the syllogistic logic of 
 Aristotle's which is used by nearly every Western philosopher that you can 
 read today.  The latter are still largely unaware that East Asian logic can 
 operate in two contradictory contexts while syllogistic logic can operate 
 (or presumes) that there is only one.  I guess you call the latter the 
 world of everyday affairs and is what all the static quality patterns in 
 the MOQ refer to.
 
 Dan:
 I think that would depend upon how one defines 'the world of everyday
 affairs.' If all static patterns refer to that, then the tetralemma is
 also part of the world of everyday affairs. It is a collection of
 intellectual quality patterns... what else could it be?
 
 Ant:
 As such, the MOQ (unlike a metaphysics based on just on syllogistic logic) 
 can incorporate Dynamic Quality (or at least point to it) within its 
 system.  Paul Turner's paper about the Tetralemma explains this in more 
 detail:
 
 Logic is a set of rules that define valid inference.  The validity of 
 inference provided by syllogistic logic and its descendants is based on an 
 assumption that propositions and the relationships between them are made and 
 inferred in one context, whether this is tacit or stated within a premise.  
 Because the rules of inference defined by the syllogism operate within a 
 single context, contradictory propositions cannot be contained within a 
 single structure of thought without being illogical.
 
 Dan:
 Right. That is on account of the underlying assumptions set forth...
 sort of like researchers measuring the speed of light using the
 assumption that the light they are measuring is really there and not a
 representation of light, which of course it is.
 
 I think this is a trap most Western philosophers fall into even
 inadvertently when they begin reading the old 'masters,' 

Re: [MD] Discretion

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jul 22, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 This is going to lose some people here (and no doubt elsewhere!) but one of 
 the primary reasons that the MOQ can be so difficult to pin down for a 
 traditional Western intellectual is its basis on the logic of the Tetralemma, 
 the four pronged logic that East Asian philosophies (certainly Buddhist and 
 Taoist traditions) use rather than the syllogistic logic of Aristotle's which 
 is used by nearly every Western philosopher that you can read today.  The 
 latter are still largely unaware that East Asian logic can operate in two 
 contradictory contexts while syllogistic logic can operate (or presumes) that 
 there is only one.  I guess you call the latter the world of everyday 
 affairs and is what all the static quality patterns in the MOQ refer to.  

Ron:
I disagree, I maintain that The basis of MOQ
Rests on the idea  that which does
Not have value, does not exist
Which I believe corresponds with
Aristotle, the question does not lay
Apon whether or not something is or
Is not, rather, it rests on whether or not it has meaning 
Pragmatically speaking.


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

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jul 16, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 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. 

Ron sez:
Ian, exactly what part of Arlo's criticism was not relevant to the
Discussion?
At what point does he not address
The topic and instead criticizes
You personally?
For example an ad hominem
ad hominem (Latin for to the man or to the person[1]), short forargumentum 
ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is 
rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person 
presenting the claim or argument. 

Where did Arlo reject your claim because you are an idiot?

See THAT is an ad hominem fallacy.

Or, your claim on criticism is invalid because
You are a dick Ian.

See how that works?

,


 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
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 two

[Ron Kulp]

 
  My thoughts today is this: Some of the simplest social patterns are those 
 that can be found among biological patterns that benefits by cooperation with 
 other molecular machines.

Ron sez:
Atoms are more stable when they share electrons.
Sounds social.
Sharing.
Stability.
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

[Ron Kulp]

Ant,
That's quite an affirmation! 

Thank you

Ron


 On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 Nice post Ron.  I'm not sure there is anything in there that - unusually - 
 that I'd add (or substract) from your replies to John Carl here,
 
 Thanks for that,
 
 Ant
 
 
 
 On Jun 30, 2014, at 5:24 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 On 6/29/14, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 wrote:
 
 On Jun 28, 2014, at 11:27 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 4)  Deep Ecology.  This is an also hihgly intellectuall  stance that
 questions intellect's anthropocentric ontology.   This was what I
 meant earlier about antihumanism -  faith in human-centric intellect
 leads to absolute catastrophe.  Human rationality isn't our proper
 source of values, Nature is our proper source of values for out of her
 we sprang and in her we have our being.
 
 So the one aspect of anti-intellectualism I'd cop to, is that last.
 My whole philosophical journey was rooted there.  I don't believe in
 weeding out good plants.
 
 Ron:
 Two problems that need clarification John.
 
 First, intellect's anthropocentric ontology. What else could intellect
 Be but anthropocentric?
 
 Jc:  Intellect is absolutely anthropocentric - that's the problem.
 there are big issues with all forms of anthropocentrism but the cheif
 one is this world isn't for humans.  There's an inherited bias
 toward the planet as a possession of man that is flawed from the
 beginning, whose final outworking is disaster.   The strongest
 cohesive example I can offer is the indians.  The land didn't belong
 to them, it belonged to all.  SOM inherited certain metaphysical
 presuppositions from religion and this is a biggie.
 
 Ron replies:
 What can be asserted is that you are also making an anthropocentric appeal 
 only it's more broad and generalized . You argue this case for the greater 
 good of humanity.
 
 I think what you are railing against is a type of shallow anthropocentrism
 Such as SOM. 
  
 Ron Kulp earlier:
 
 Even when It focuses on the broader human good, one which encompasses care
 For and observance of the environment, it is always to enrich the human
 experience. It's job is to solve
 Problems. Human problems.
 
 Jc:  The earth's problems are the humans problems.  Wiping out your
 ecological niche is a bad move all way around, and man's very being is
 bound up in the natural world - therefore man's concern ought to be
 for that whole.  That.  Not man apart from that.  There is a
 comprehensive intellectual critique, behind my simple words, so it's
 not that intellect is evil or wrong or a bad tool.  It's just when
 it's made the highest in a hierarchy or the king of the world, that it
 runs into problems.
 
 Ron replies: 
 What if this King made environmental health it's primary goal?
  
 Ron:
 
 
 Some would consider human rationality an extension of nature.
 
 
 Jc:  Sure, the lorax speaks for the trees, and so do I.  When we live
 in nature, we express and think about the natural analogies.  When we
 live in an intellectualized virtual reality, we are in trouble.
 
 Ron replies:
 Preaching to the choir, I don't see anyone here arguing for intellectual
 Abstraction and rationalism, this is a group of empiricists.
  
 Ron:
 
 But you are talking about the locus
 Of values, which boils down to this,
 You interpret RMP as placing that locus on intellectual values.
 
 Jc:  I'm not sure, actually.  I know it's a trap I avoid, and I know
 it's a trap he fell into and then escaped and thus perhaps feels he
 can dip in and out whenever he wants.   That may be true.  As the
 discussion here has gone tho, Arlo's and DMB's point seems to be along
 the lines of definding intellectual-ism.
 
 Ron replies:
 They defend intellectual quality there is a difference.
  
 Ron:
 
 But if you
 read his work, the locus of all value is Dynamic value.
 
 Jc:  I'm talking in a practical sense Ron, what way of life do I
 orient myself?  If I say to people, DQ they scoff at me as
 anti-intellectual, even on this list which is dedicated to Pirsig's
 thought.  So when the rubber hits the road, it looks like intellect is
 laughing last.
 
 Ron replies:
 Perhaps, but what is important is the orientation of intellect, this then is 
 the primary realization. If intellect does have the last laugh then how it's 
 crafted and how it acts is of the utmost concern, no?
  
 Ron:
 
 Remember the idea that we emerge from the environment is an idea.
 A good idea but a human idea.
 All experience can only ever be our
 Hu
 man experience we can know
 No other.
 
 Jc:  Well, I beg to differ.  We can know experience of others,
 especially mammals, but with deep quiet, all of being.  In fact, it is
 through knowing this diversity of otherness that we know ourselves.
 the myriad things confirm the self
 
 Ron replies:
 Now I beg to differ, anyone who claims to know how a dolphin thinks or feels

Re: [MD] Post-Intellectualism

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 30, 2014, at 5:24 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 On 6/29/14, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 On Jun 28, 2014, at 11:27 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 4)  Deep Ecology.  This is an also hihgly intellectuall  stance that
 questions intellect's anthropocentric ontology.   This was what I
 meant earlier about antihumanism -  faith in human-centric intellect
 leads to absolute catastrophe.  Human rationality isn't our proper
 source of values, Nature is our proper source of values for out of her
 we sprang and in her we have our being.
 
 So the one aspect of anti-intellectualism I'd cop to, is that last.
 My whole philosophical journey was rooted there.  I don't believe in
 weeding out good plants.
 
 Ron:
 Two problems that need clarification
 John.
 First, intellect's anthropocentric ontology. What else could intellect
 Be but anthropocentric?
 
 Jc:  Intellect is absolutely anthropocentric - that's the problem.
 there are big issues with all forms of anthropocentrism but the cheif
 one is this world isn't for humans.  There's an inherited bias
 toward the planet as a possession of man that is flawed from the
 beginning, whose final outworking is disaster.   The strongest
 cohesive example I can offer is the indians.  The land didn't belong
 to them, it belonged to all.  SOM inherited certain metaphysical
 presuppositions from religion and this is a biggie.

Ron replies:
What can be asserted is that you are also making an anthropocentric appeal only 
it's more broad and generalized . You argue this case for the greater good of 
humanity .
I think what you are railing against is a type of shallow anthropocentrism
Such as SOM. 
 
 Ron:
 
 Even when
 It focuses on the broader human good, one which encompasses care
 For and observance of the environment, it is always to enrich the human
 experience. It's job is to solve
 Problems. Human problems.
 
 Jc:  The earth's problems are the humans problems.  Wiping out your
 ecological niche is a bad move all way around, and man's very being is
 bound up in the natural world - therefore man's concern ought to be
 for that whole.  That.  Not man apart from that.  There is a
 comprehensive intellectual critique, behind my simple words, so it's
 not that intellect is evil or wrong or a bad tool.  It's just when
 it's made the highest in a hierarchy or the king of the world, that it
 runs into problems.

Ron replies: 
What if this king made environmental
Health it's primary goal?
 
 
 Ron:
 
 
 Some would consider human rationality an extension of nature.
 
 
 Jc:  Sure, the lorax speaks for the trees, and so do I.  When we live
 in nature, we express and think about the natural analogies.  When we
 live in an intellectualized virtual reality, we are in trouble.

Ron replies:
Preaching to the choir, I don't see anyone here arguing for intellectual
Abstraction and rationalism, this is a group of empiricists.
 
 Ron:
 
 But you are talking about the locus
 Of values, which boils down to this,
 You interpret RMP as placing that locus on intellectual values.
 
 Jc:  I'm not sure, actually.  I know it's a trap I avoid, and I know
 it's a trap he fell into and then escaped and thus perhaps feels he
 can dip in and out whenever he wants.   That may be true.  As the
 discussion here has gone tho, Arlo's and DMB's point seems to be along
 the lines of definding intellectual-ism.

Ron replies:
They defend intellectual Quality there is a difference.
 
 Ron:
 
 But if you
 read his work, the locus of all value is Dynamic value.
 
 Jc:  I'm talking in a practical sense Ron, what way of life do I
 orient myself?  If I say to people, DQ they scoff at me as
 anti-intellectual, even on this list which is dedicated to Pirsig's
 thought.  So when the rubber hits the road, it looks like intellect is
 laughing last.

Ron replies:
Perhaps, but what is important is the orientation of intellect, this then is 
the primary realization. If intellect does have the last laugh then how it's 
crafted and how it acts is of the utmost concern, no?
 
 Ron:
 
 Remember the idea that we emerge from the environment is an idea.
 A good idea but a human idea.
 All experience can only ever be our
 Hu
 man experience we can know
 No other.
 
 Jc:  Well, I beg to differ.  We can know experience of others,
 especially mammals, but with deep quiet, all of being.  In fact, it is
 through knowing this diversity of otherness that we know ourselves.
 the myriad things confirm the self

Ron replies:
Now I beg to differ, anyone who claims to know how a dolphin thinks or feels is 
really anthropomorphisizing
One may empathize with living beings
Extending ones compassion to others as compassion for the self, but you begin 
to rationalize when you project 
Yourself on others and claim knowledge of their experience.
 
 Second
 
 John Carl states:
 Without the imagination of a hall filled with sound, no
 intellectual pattern of composition can occur.   Here's a big

Re: [MD] Post-Intellectualism

[Ron Kulp]

 
  John,
I think MOQ considers deep ecology highly moral. It's an intellectual virtue.
I think if you wanted to discuss the enrichment and development of this topic, 
no one would argue against its
Excellence.

Ron
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

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 28, 2014, at 11:27 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 4)  Deep Ecology.  This is an also hihgly intellectuall  stance that
 questions intellect's anthropocentric ontology.   This was what I
 meant earlier about antihumanism -  faith in human-centric intellect
 leads to absolute catastrophe.  Human rationality isn't our proper
 source of values, Nature is our proper source of values for out of her
 we sprang and in her we have our being.
 
 So the one aspect of anti-intellectualism I'd cop to, is that last.
 My whole philosophical journey was rooted there.  I don't believe in
 weeding out good plants.

Ron:
Two problems that need clarification 
John. 
First, intellect's anthropocentric ontology. What else could intellect
Be but anthropocentric? Even when
It focuses on the broader human good, one which encompasses care
For and observance of the environment, it is always to enrich the human 
experience. It's job is to solve
Problems. Human problems. 
Some would consider human rationality an extension of nature.
But you are talking about the locus
Of values, which boils down to this,
You interpret RMP as placing that locus on intellectual values. But if you read 
his work, the locus of all value is Dynamic value.
Remember the idea that we emerge from the environment is an idea.
A good idea but a human idea.
All experience can only ever be our
Human experience we can know
No other.

Second

John Carl states:
Without the imagination of a hall filled with sound, no
intellectual pattern of composition can occur.   Here's a big problem,
I have.  Where's art?  Where does art fit in?  You can say intellect
but when you make intellect the arbiter of all reality, it tends to
decide for itself what is art and what is not and that is a very bad
idea.

Ron:
That's because you still insist Art
Is separate and distinct from the human experience but what you are
Really asking is how does beauty fit
In. How does RMP's explanation account for the beautiful in human experience 
again if you read his work
He explains that Dynamic quality, the
Ineffable good the force that drives and compels is the source of beauty.
Now, some wise folks contend that
In order to see hear feel or taste beauty to apprehend it, it must have
Meaning. Therefore meaning, good and beauty become synonymous.
(Experience is composed of preferences) therefore intellect and
Art are synonymous ( the rendering of meaning from experience ) 

But first and foremost John you do
Realize that MOQ subscribes to
Idealism, that everything we experience is derived from thoughts
About experience. Almost the entirety
Of human experience is based on layers and layers of thoughts about experience. 
The wise then note that
All of human experience, what we call nature and reality is an act of creation
it is art!  

This, above all else, is what you fail
To understand about Pirsigs explanation.

To say that Art is somehow degraded
By making it the center of a metaphysics is not to understand
The metaphysic.

Remember it is you that has the problem with understanding art as intellect, 
art as experience and art as reality. Somehow it denigrates some elitist notion 
of art as a sacred and holy static idea to be worshiped.
Remember it is your own prejudice 
You struggle with most.


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] Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy

[Ron Kulp]

Ant,
Wow, thanks! I will certainly take that advice and read Reimer first.
Thank you for the link.
Ron

 On Jun 26, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 Friends, Romans, Countrymen!
 
 I would strongly advise anyone who is thinking of starting an MOQ 
 reconstruction model for education that they read Everett W. Reimer's classic 
 text School is Dead; An Essay on Alternatives in Education BEFORE Dewey and 
 Freire because Reimer puts these two great educationalists in CONTEXT.  It 
 can be downloaded for free from:
 
 www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/dead.pdf
 
 Reimer's text took me only about four hours to read but is stacked full of 
 new progressive ideas (unsurprizingly it was written in the late 1960s!) that 
 will make for a refreshing read for anyone disillusioned with the direction 
 of modern education (especially in North America and Western Europe) over the 
 last 150 years and especially the last forty.
 
 In fact, Reimer's School is Dead book will be forming the basis of the new 
 MOQ College of Arts which will be enrolling its first students towards the 
 end of this year (in Liverpool). Paulo Freire is mentioned throughout 
 Reimer's book so his ideas about education (though Dewey and, of course, 
 Pirsig's too) will be the guiding lynchpins about how this new university 
 will operate.
 
 Reimer initially thought in the 1950s - with his friend  colleague Ivan 
 Illich - that everyone in the world should go to school but after spending 
 time - on the ground so to speak - in Latin America, eventually realised the 
 stupity of such a project in so many ways.  For a start, there simply is not 
 enough resources in the world to give every child a SCHOOL education from 5 
 to 18 and most GENUINE, USEFUL education is actually done at home and at work 
 i.e. in practice. 
 
 Schools and universities also tend to support the status quo (see how they 
 responded in Nazi Germany compared to the more independent Churches) and - 
 just like right-wingers who ignorantly exploit the poor and marginalised - 
 don't do many children much good in the long run.  Why do you think it's a 
 criminal offence in many countries - such as England - for NOT sending your 
 child/ren to school?
 
 Think about it!!!
 
 Ant
 
 --
 
 
 I used to get mad at my school
 
 The teachers who taught me weren't cool
 
 You're holding me down, turning me round
 
 Filling me up with your rules (...foolish rules)
 
 
 
 [But] I've got to admit it's getting better 
 
 A little better all the time (It can't get much worse)
 
 I have to admit it's getting better 
 
 It's getting better since YOU'VE been mine...
 
 (Lennon-McCartney, Northern Songs, 1967)
 
 
 On Jun 23, 2014, at 8:01 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
  
 I've mentioned Freire several times over the years. The perennial and, now, 
 generational educational crisis in America, I believe, results from a 
 societal inability to answer the fundamental question why educate? We talk 
 about testing and assessment and standards but few can articulate a 'purpose' 
 behind the structure, and those that can (and do) are those that have come to 
 see education as a servant to capitalism; the goal of education is to meet 
 labor demands.
 
 Ron Kulp responded June 24th:
 
 I had thought so, the more I develop a clearer understanding of Pragmatism 
 and RMP's MOQ, the more it becomes evident that the primary thrust and 
 direction of that solution space lies in critical pedagogy.
 
 I am currently still in the discovery stage and it's pleasing to see that 
 this is a subject that has some history here.  To me, this is what a MOQ 
 reconstruction Model looks like.
 
 
 
 .
 
 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] Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 23, 2014, at 8:01 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
 
 Arlo]
 I've mentioned Freire several times over the years. The perennial and, now, 
 generational educational crisis in America, I believe, results from a 
 societal inability to answer the fundamental question why educate? We talk 
 about testing and assessment and standards but few can articulate a 'purpose' 
 behind the structure, and those that can (and do) are those that have come to 
 see education as a servant to capitalism; the goal of education is to meet 
 labor demands.

Ron:
I had thought so, the more I develop
A clearer understanding of Pragmatism and RMP's MOQ, the more it becomes 
evident that the primary thrust and direction of that solution space lies in 
critical pedagogy.
I am currently still in the discovery stage and it's pleasing to see that this
Is a subject that has some history here.
To me, this is what a MOQ reconstruction
Model looks like.

Thnx!
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] Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy

[Ron Kulp]

This reading is from: PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED by Paulo Freire. New York: 
Continuum Books, 1993.

CHAPTER 2

A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or 
outside the school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character. This 
relationship involves a narrating Subject (the teacher) and patient listening 
objects (the students). The contents, whether values or empirical dimensions of 
reality, tend in the process of being narrated to become lifeless and 
petrified. Education is suffering from narration sickness.

The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, 
compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic completely 
alien to the existential experience of the students. His task is to fill the 
students with the contents of his narration -- contents which are detached from 
reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give 
them significance. Words are emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow, 
alienated, and alienating verbosity.

The outstanding characteristic of this narrative education, then, is the 
sonority of words, not their transforming power. Four times four is sixteen; 
the capital of Para is Belem. The student records, memorizes, and repeats 
these phrases without perceiving what four times four really means, or 
realizing the true significance of capital in the affirmation the capital of 
Para is Belem, that is, what Belem means for Para and what Para means for 
Brazil.

Narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize 
mechanically the narrated account. Worse yet, it turns them into containers, 
into receptacles to be filled by the teachers. The more completely she 
fills the receptacles, the better a teachers she is. The more meekly the 
receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are.

Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the 
depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the 
teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently 
receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the banking' concept of education, in 
which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as 
receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. They do, it is true, have the 
opportunity to become collectors or cataloguers of the things they store. But 
in the last analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away through 
the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) 
misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals 
cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and 
re-invention, through the restless, impatient continuing, hopeful inquiry human 
beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.


 On Jun 22, 2014, at 10:02 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 I haven't read The pedagogy of Oppression but judging from the article that 
 you linked here, Paulo Freire - as an American working class intellectual - 
 seemed to know what he was talking about; especially in regards to (social) 
 justice and the role that education has in this:
 
 For Freire, intellectuals must match their call for making the 
 pedagogical more political with an ongoing effort to build those 
 coalitions, affiliations and social movements capable of mobilizing real
 power and promoting substantive social change. Freire understood quite 
 keenly that democracy was threatened by a powerful military-industrial 
 complex and the increased power of the warfare state, but he also 
 recognized the pedagogical force of a corporate and militarized culture 
 that eroded the moral and civic capacities of citizens to think beyond 
 the common sense of official power and its legitimating ideologies. 
 Freire never lost sight of Robert Hass' claim that the job of education,
 its political job, 'is to refresh the idea of justice going dead in us 
 all the time.'
 At a time when education has become one of the official sites of 
 conformity, disempowerment and uncompromising modes of punishment, the 
 legacy of Paulo Freire's work is more important than ever before.
 
 http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy
 
 
 
 Ron Kulp asked June 22nd 2014:
 
 Has anyone here read Paulo Freire? Has anyone linked his ideas of critical 
 pedagogy with RMPs Work?  I am reading the pedagogy of oppression  and it 
 seems to sync with Dewey and Pirsig, I'm still at the discovery stage so a 
 lot could change. But it seems like a very important 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

Re: [MD] Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy

[Ron Kulp]

All interested,
Has anyone here read
Paulo Freire? Has anyone linked his ideas of critical pedagogy with RMPs
Work? 
I am reading the pedagogy of oppression  and it seems to sync with Dewey and 
Pirsig, I'm still at the discovery stage so a lot could change
But it seems like a very important work.

Ron


 On Jun 20, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy
 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] Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy

[Ron Kulp]

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy
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 Handbook for Drugs - PART 1

[Ron Kulp]

Jan,
Interestingly enough, thesespirits
Were commonly used in ancient rites
Just for the divination of the Dynamic,
Static pattern breaking temporary psychosis is the theme.
Some argue that it was these rites
Which indeed ARE evolutionary processes.
I think RMPs work is based in this theme.

-Ron 

 On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com 
 wrote:
 
 Sorry Ant
 
 At first I thought you were ironic. But I'll stick to the experience of our 
 sensory system that was developed and guided by DQ through the evolution at 
 all 4 levels. I don't think drugs will help us understand DQ any better. 
 Alcohol, tobacco, dope, they all affect how the brain functions. The problem 
 while using drugs  is that the observation of oneself is also affected, the 
 mind-mirror is colored by the same substance. You think you see all there is 
 to see, with colored and distorted glasses. It may also distort your reading.
 
 All the inorganic, the biological, social and intellectual static patterns 
 that took place before us made its evolutionary steps without drugs. Being a 
 fly in a soup doesn't work very good.
 
 Drugs affect our critical parts of our mental system in a destructive 
 direction. Because, we need both sound critical and sensual abilities at its 
 best to come closer to DQ.
 
 We don't need drugs to hallucinate or find new patterns of thought. 
 Mutations, dreams and stupidity are already at hand. Some days can get really 
 weird.
 
 Good art is a well balanced pattern in the three dimensions. Anyone can do 
 anything better just by some conscious excercise. You'll really know when you 
 are on the right track.
 
 Take a fork, is it the right size or is it for picking olives? How many teeth 
 and are all straight? Is it the best tool for eating soup?
 
 Bon appétit
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX1uBcMfBl8
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPJ1ybWo09s
 
 Jan-Anders
 
 
 15 jun 2014 x kl. 14.56 skrev Ant McWatt:
 
 Jan Anders,
 
 Thank you for the brief comment!  I think you're slightly missing the point 
 though.
 
 If someone asked me if I'd prefer a dentist, doctor or lawyer who takes 
 cannabis or LSD in the evening at home AFTER they have done their day's 
 work, then all things being equal, I would choose them every time over their 
 sober colleagues (who probably have been people with serious alcohol 
 problems anyway)!  Hence the link to the Susan Blackmore article in my last 
 MD post:
 
 www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/telegraphdrugs.htm.
 
 Another example is that I don't personally listen to much (if any) popular 
 music by musicians who haven't taken recreational drugs.  As Bill hicks 
 noted, drug free inspired rock music sucks!!!
 
 Finally, the bottom line with me with all drugs is combining freedom to 
 chose as an adult what drugs I take WITH the responsibility and education 
 that such freedom entails (or should at least try to seek).
 
 For instance, Adrie's recent heartfelt post (much appreciated btw) about the 
 latter shows to me (amongst other issues) that the cannabis market in the 
 Netherlands is unfortunately not being controlled properly (despite my 
 initial impressions given in my Handbook).  
 
 As ever, we see the methodology of participant observation (Adries lives 
 in Holland; I've only been a tourist there a couple of times), as promoted 
 by Pirsig in LILA, is the primary way to go for researching such issues.  In 
 other words, he knows what he's talking about in this particular regard, I 
 don't!
 
 Best wishes,
 
 Ant
 
 
 Jan Anders Andersson responded to Ant McWatt's last MD post, June 14th 2014:
 
 I think drugs are ok as long as you also accept that your dentist, your 
 doctor or your lawyer are stoned while assisting you.
 
 
 .
 
 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] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 10, 2014, at 7:53 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 John,
 Let's look again at the philosophical
 Meat and potatoes offered up, sans
 Pirsig sez that seemed to be over looked in your reply:
 
 
 Jc:  Ok.
 
 RK:
 
 
 
 Art is born when out of the many bits if information
 derived
 from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view
 of
 which they are unified whole.
 Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.
 
 Jc:
 
 Well, I hate to argue with Ari, but it's been done before... so here goes.
 First off, the way I construe what he's saying, is that substance
 interacting with knowledge, births art.  Is that right?  Bit's of
 information, begs the questions of cultural, conceptual frameworks and it
 doesn't seem to match the actual birth of art in experience.  Einstein
 didn't come up with his elegant statement, or Leonardo with Mona Lisa's
 smile, through many bits of information derived from experience.  There
 were millions such, deriving the same bits of information, from similar
 experience.  Art is born of DQ, and nothing else that I can think of.

Ron:
Neither if these artists solved their problems in a vacuum. Einstein applied 
the mathematics used to model water and applied it to space,
He didn't create anything but a useful connection. And who knows about Da 
Vinci's Mona Lisa. I think that's more about interpretation. But your making a 
lot of assumptions too about substance and knowledge.
He was after meaning, not truth.
Art is born of man. To be a human being is to be an intellectual being.
Art is an intellectual endeavor, it holds meaning. solves problems.
Again your only arguement is one
Of elitism. It seems to just piss you off that everyone is an artist, just some 
are better than others.

Aristotle :
  Art is born when out of the many bits if information
 derived
 from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of
 which they are unified whole.
 Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.
 
 Knowing in the truest sense concerns
 What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in
 being aware of the intelligible. 
 
 It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self
 sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best.
 - book Lambda
 
 To the Greeks knowing what is best
 Is the divine aspect of being.
 
 Ron quoting Ari:
 
 
 Knowing in the truest sense concerns
 What is best in the truest sense.
 
 Jc:  Absolutely true!
 
 R-A:
 
 So intellect finds it's fulfillment in
 being aware of the intelligible. 
 
 
 Jc:  Full awareness of the intelligible is too big a task, for modern man.

Ron:
Another assumption, what is intelligible is unique to one experience. What is 
intelligible to 
You.

Jc :
 There's become too much to conceptualize, since Ari's time.
 So intellect discriminates.  It categorizes and wields that analytic
 knife.  Intellect isn't content with mere awareness.  Intellect seeks
 understanding.  That's where intellect finds its peace of mind.
 
Ron:
That's Pirsigs gripe too

 R-A:
 
 It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self
 sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best.
 - book Lambda
 
 To the Greeks knowing what is best
 Is the divine aspect of being.
 
 Intellect is the creative act of understanding experience.

 Jc:  Intellect is dualistic in nature, then?  There is a logical/analytic
 aspect, and a creative, imaginary aspect?
 
Ron:
How did you get that from this passage?


 R-A:
 
 
 It is a divine act, it is the knowledge of the Good. Therefore an extension
 Of the Good. That's why the Greeks put it at the top, intellect was an
 extension of god the creative source,
 Intellect, the creative act of being.
 
 Let's address this because it has a lot to do with RMPs project.
 
 -Ron

Jc:
 I was talking to Dan about Jacob Needleman - here's an excerpt from a book
 on his website
 http://jacobneedleman.squarespace.com/books/necessary-wisdom.html:
 
 NEEDLEMAN: The basic idea of Stoicism is that we are essentially one with
 the great self, or Logos of the universe. That’s our true nature. We
 exercise that true nature by the capacity of the mind to relate consciously
 to its experiences — to accept, understand, or receive them without the
 preferences of liking or disliking those experiences, or responding with
 fear or craving.

Ron:
This explanation neglects the Good.
It does not explain why some things
Are better than others . For it is true.
Some things ARE better than others no?

Jc:
 Nor does a true stoic try to reinterpret experiences, make
 them more or less dramatic, or good or bad. The stoic receives all
 experiences with an inner quiet.
 
Ron:
I think that's rubbish. All living beings know what good is.
I think they're jerking themselves off.

Jc:
 It reminded me of my friend Steve, since he's the co-owner of the stoics
 mailing list.  I've asked him

Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

John,
But you insist Pirsig isn't accounting for something in his explanation 
Now why is that?
Ron

 On Jun 11, 2014, at 12:59 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 I think there is an aspect of intellect, that is very close to DQ.
 Intellect is indefinable and yeah, I know everything is, but intellect is
 indefinable in a special way - since it's the means of defining as well.
 So defining intellect, is most of all,  more a creative art than a
 rigorously logical process.
 
 That's all I'm sayin'.
 
 Ron;
 That's all Pirsig is saying.
 Then we are in agreement and there shouldn't be a problem.
 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] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

John,
Again, isn't creativity a problem solving endeavor?
-Ron 

 On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:07 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Not at all, Ron.
 
 
 On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 John,
 Ok, you feel creativity stands above excellence. But I ask, how is
 creativity set apart from problem solving? Isn't necessity the mother if
 invention?
 - Ron
 I feel that creativity stands side-by-side with excellence.  It's a
 marriage, not a hierarchy.
 
 John
 
 
 
 
 On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 Ron:
 
 I think the main problem is the beginning assumptions about what
 The term intellect  means, to you.
 
 Jc: I'm sure that's true.  Just about any philosophic problem hangs on
 our
 assumptions.
 
 Ron:
 
 
 Several definitions mention it as a faculty of the mind, a function of
 consciousness, the act of critical
 Thinking.
 
 
 jc:  The act of critical thinking comes closest to my view.  Everybody
 has
 a mind, but not everybody uses their intellect.
 
 Ron;
 
 
 But you by-pass those entries and hold to what interests you.
 
 
 
 Jc:  What interests me Ron, is that the act of critical thinking is
 only
 half the story.  Why then does the MoQ make it seem like the whole
 enchilada?
 
 Ron:
 
 
 That traditional misunderstanding, which is what it is,
 A traditional misunderstanding of the meaning of intellect handed down
 by the Greeks. That misunderstanding is objectivism. Robert Pirsigs
 project
 Is to correct this misunderstanding.
 That's why it's important to read Plato and Aristotle and understand
 The origin of the Greek meaning and tradition of intellect. The project
 is
 about the recovery of a tradition of thought before misinterpretation
 divided it. Art is born when out of the many bits if information
 derived
 from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of
 which they are unified whole.
 Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.
 
 Knowing in the truest sense concerns
 What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in
 being aware of the intelligible. 
 
 It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self
 sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best.
 - book Lambda
 
 To the Greeks knowing what is best
 Is the divine aspect of being.
 
 
 
 
 JohnC
 
 PS:  By respond I mean without resorting to because RMP said so.
 Since's it's Pirsig's terminology I'm taking to task here, something
 more
 is needed to defend it than the mere fact of what Pirsig said.
 Ron:
 How else are we to tie into what we mean. This is a site dedicated to
 his
 work.
 
 
 What I mean is, since I'm addressing a shortcoming in Pirsig's view, it's
 nonsensical to respond with but that's Pirsig's view.  or you don't
 understand the MoQ
 
 Look at the story - Phaedrus licked the daemon of objective intellect,
 right?  And this thing, that he hated, was in himself as well, right?
 That
 which endlessly analyzes and examines critically.  Then in Lila, he falls
 back into, what he terms himself, degenerate activity. (Matt 12:43-45)
 
 But the immorality was not doing metaphysics, the immorality was
 enthroning intellect as the king of all static being.  The reason I say
 immoral is, because intellect was also doing the crowning.  A king cannot
 crown himself.  There must be otherness, at the top level to avoid
 recursion.
 
 Also immoral, because making the MoQ thus, allows intellect to bully and
 rule over all other patterns, putting itself first and reifying itself,
 it
 then kills all opposition and alternative thinking.  It's too static.  DQ
 has been placed in the unobtainable ether where its inaccessible and we
 don't talk about it anymore.  My solution is to bring it down to earth,
 and
 make artistic imagination the partner of intellect at the 4th level and
 not
 only is that satisfying (there's no place for ART in the MoQ!!)  it's a
 logical solution because without imaginative conceptualization, there is
 nothing to critically analyze.  Intellect is good at selecting among
 given
 ideas - but then where do given ideas come from?  Not intellect, or
 Phaedrus would have deduced how hypothesi arose.
 
 Thanks for hearing me out, Ron.
 
 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
 
 
 
 -- 
 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

Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

John,
Is there a distinction between creativity and problem solving?

-Ron 

 On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 John,
 Again, isn't creativity a problem solving endeavor?
 -Ron 
 
 On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:07 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Not at all, Ron.
 
 
 On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 John,
 Ok, you feel creativity stands above excellence. But I ask, how is
 creativity set apart from problem solving? Isn't necessity the mother if
 invention?
 - Ron
 I feel that creativity stands side-by-side with excellence.  It's a
 marriage, not a hierarchy.
 
 John
 
 
 
 
 On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 Ron:
 
 I think the main problem is the beginning assumptions about what
 The term intellect  means, to you.
 
 Jc: I'm sure that's true.  Just about any philosophic problem hangs on
 our
 assumptions.
 
 Ron:
 
 
 Several definitions mention it as a faculty of the mind, a function of
 consciousness, the act of critical
 Thinking.
 
 
 jc:  The act of critical thinking comes closest to my view.  Everybody
 has
 a mind, but not everybody uses their intellect.
 
 Ron;
 
 
 But you by-pass those entries and hold to what interests you.
 
 
 
 Jc:  What interests me Ron, is that the act of critical thinking is
 only
 half the story.  Why then does the MoQ make it seem like the whole
 enchilada?
 
 Ron:
 
 
 That traditional misunderstanding, which is what it is,
 A traditional misunderstanding of the meaning of intellect handed down
 by the Greeks. That misunderstanding is objectivism. Robert Pirsigs
 project
 Is to correct this misunderstanding.
 That's why it's important to read Plato and Aristotle and understand
 The origin of the Greek meaning and tradition of intellect. The project
 is
 about the recovery of a tradition of thought before misinterpretation
 divided it. Art is born when out of the many bits if information
 derived
 from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of
 which they are unified whole.
 Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.
 
 Knowing in the truest sense concerns
 What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in
 being aware of the intelligible. 
 
 It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self
 sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best.
 - book Lambda
 
 To the Greeks knowing what is best
 Is the divine aspect of being.
 
 
 
 
 JohnC
 
 PS:  By respond I mean without resorting to because RMP said so.
 Since's it's Pirsig's terminology I'm taking to task here, something
 more
 is needed to defend it than the mere fact of what Pirsig said.
 Ron:
 How else are we to tie into what we mean. This is a site dedicated to
 his
 work.
 
 
 What I mean is, since I'm addressing a shortcoming in Pirsig's view, it's
 nonsensical to respond with but that's Pirsig's view.  or you don't
 understand the MoQ
 
 Look at the story - Phaedrus licked the daemon of objective intellect,
 right?  And this thing, that he hated, was in himself as well, right?
 That
 which endlessly analyzes and examines critically.  Then in Lila, he falls
 back into, what he terms himself, degenerate activity. (Matt 12:43-45)
 
 But the immorality was not doing metaphysics, the immorality was
 enthroning intellect as the king of all static being.  The reason I say
 immoral is, because intellect was also doing the crowning.  A king cannot
 crown himself.  There must be otherness, at the top level to avoid
 recursion.
 
 Also immoral, because making the MoQ thus, allows intellect to bully and
 rule over all other patterns, putting itself first and reifying itself,
 it
 then kills all opposition and alternative thinking.  It's too static.  DQ
 has been placed in the unobtainable ether where its inaccessible and we
 don't talk about it anymore.  My solution is to bring it down to earth,
 and
 make artistic imagination the partner of intellect at the 4th level and
 not
 only is that satisfying (there's no place for ART in the MoQ!!)  it's a
 logical solution because without imaginative conceptualization, there is
 nothing to critically analyze.  Intellect is good at selecting among
 given
 ideas - but then where do given ideas come from?  Not intellect, or
 Phaedrus would have deduced how hypothesi arose.
 
 Thanks for hearing me out, Ron.
 
 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
 
 
 
 -- 
 finite players
 play within boundaries.
 Infinite players
 play *with* boundaries.
 Moq_Discuss mailing list
 Listinfo

Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

John,
Let's look again at the philosophical
Meat and potatoes offered up, sans
Pirsig sez that seemed to be over looked in your reply:

 Art is born when out of the many bits if information
 derived
 from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of
 which they are unified whole.
 Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.
 
 Knowing in the truest sense concerns
 What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in
 being aware of the intelligible. 
 
 It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self
 sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best.
 - book Lambda
 
 To the Greeks knowing what is best
 Is the divine aspect of being.

Intellect is the creative act of understanding experience. 

It is a divine act, it is the knowledge of the Good. Therefore an extension
Of the Good. That's why the Greeks put it at the top, intellect was an 
extension of god the creative source,
Intellect, the creative act of being.
 
Let's address this because it has a lot to do with RMPs project.

-Ron

.
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

[Ron Kulp]

John,
Ok, you feel creativity stands above excellence. But I ask, how is creativity 
set apart from problem solving? Isn't necessity the mother if invention? 
- Ron 

 On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 Ron:
 
 I think the main problem is the beginning assumptions about what
 The term intellect  means, to you.
 
 Jc: I'm sure that's true.  Just about any philosophic problem hangs on our
 assumptions.
 
 Ron:
 
 
 Several definitions mention it as a faculty of the mind, a function of
 consciousness, the act of critical
 Thinking.
 
 
 jc:  The act of critical thinking comes closest to my view.  Everybody has
 a mind, but not everybody uses their intellect.
 
 Ron;
 
 
 But you by-pass those entries and hold to what interests you.
 
 
 
 Jc:  What interests me Ron, is that the act of critical thinking is only
 half the story.  Why then does the MoQ make it seem like the whole
 enchilada?
 
 Ron:
 
 
 That traditional misunderstanding, which is what it is,
 A traditional misunderstanding of the meaning of intellect handed down
 by the Greeks. That misunderstanding is objectivism. Robert Pirsigs project
 Is to correct this misunderstanding.
 That's why it's important to read Plato and Aristotle and understand
 The origin of the Greek meaning and tradition of intellect. The project is
 about the recovery of a tradition of thought before misinterpretation
 divided it. Art is born when out of the many bits if information derived
 from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of
 which they are unified whole.
 Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.
 
 Knowing in the truest sense concerns
 What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in
 being aware of the intelligible. 
 
 It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self
 sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best.
 - book Lambda
 
 To the Greeks knowing what is best
 Is the divine aspect of being.
 
 
 
 
 JohnC
 
 PS:  By respond I mean without resorting to because RMP said so.
 Since's it's Pirsig's terminology I'm taking to task here, something more
 is needed to defend it than the mere fact of what Pirsig said.
 Ron:
 How else are we to tie into what we mean. This is a site dedicated to his
 work.
 
 
 What I mean is, since I'm addressing a shortcoming in Pirsig's view, it's
 nonsensical to respond with but that's Pirsig's view.  or you don't
 understand the MoQ
 
 Look at the story - Phaedrus licked the daemon of objective intellect,
 right?  And this thing, that he hated, was in himself as well, right?  That
 which endlessly analyzes and examines critically.  Then in Lila, he falls
 back into, what he terms himself, degenerate activity. (Matt 12:43-45)
 
 But the immorality was not doing metaphysics, the immorality was
 enthroning intellect as the king of all static being.  The reason I say
 immoral is, because intellect was also doing the crowning.  A king cannot
 crown himself.  There must be otherness, at the top level to avoid
 recursion.
 
 Also immoral, because making the MoQ thus, allows intellect to bully and
 rule over all other patterns, putting itself first and reifying itself, it
 then kills all opposition and alternative thinking.  It's too static.  DQ
 has been placed in the unobtainable ether where its inaccessible and we
 don't talk about it anymore.  My solution is to bring it down to earth, and
 make artistic imagination the partner of intellect at the 4th level and not
 only is that satisfying (there's no place for ART in the MoQ!!)  it's a
 logical solution because without imaginative conceptualization, there is
 nothing to critically analyze.  Intellect is good at selecting among given
 ideas - but then where do given ideas come from?  Not intellect, or
 Phaedrus would have deduced how hypothesi arose.
 
 Thanks for hearing me out, Ron.
 
 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] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 7, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
 
 Hi Folks
 
 DMB is making a very valid point here.
 The two people (John C and Ian) who were (and appear to still be) attached to 
 Bo's SOM = Intellect are also the two that are having the hardest time 
 getting their heads around the problem space/solution scenario that several 
 people here have commented on, supplied evidence for and generally given a 
 crystal clear explanation about!
 I'm having a really hard time understanding why you can't (or won't) make the 
 transition.
 There is no problem here and as DMB has re-iterated over and over, stop 
 confusing the problem with the cure!
 I'm sure both of you will say that you have disagreements with Bo and his 
 flawed interpretation but the bottom line is you're still stuck in that 
 particular mode. This is similar to when myself, Arlo, Dan, etc. say that we 
 have minor disagreements with some small areas of the MoQ but overall we are 
 all in agreement with the vast majority of it. You two appear to be doing the 
 same thing a la Bo - your disagreements do not overcome your general 
 adherence to his mistaken and inaccurate interpretation. Until you get past 
 this you ARE going to be stuck in the same place as when Bo left. No amount 
 of evidence is going to shift you because you will just keep ignoring and/or 
 denying it.
 
 There are none so blind.etc.
 
 Horse
 
Ron sez:
We have to remember that these folks have invested a lot into this point of 
view. It has become a way of life, who they are. Because they essentially 
define themselves by this point of view, attacking it is basically an attack on 
their person. Changing
That point of view means a restructuring of who they are.
Plus I think John has such chip on his shoulder concerning DMB that he will do 
anything but admit he has been mistaken and Dave is correct.
There seems to be a lot of ego involved.
There is this romanticism about painting themselves as the lone brujo
Of RMPs examples fighting the system. 
Granted, they exercise the muscle of explanation and polish our rhetorical 
skills, but it does get tiresome and ridiculous at some point and impedes
The progressive dialog.

.




 On 06/06/2014 17:28, david wrote:
 Ian said:
 
 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 we all sincerely believe intellect scores over (mere) feeling. 
 Carry on girls.
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 If we refers to John and yourself, then yes. You're still stuck where Bo 
 left off, which is equating SOM with intellect. This, for the tenth time at 
 least, is a matter of being stuck in the problem space. It's funny that 
 you should mention Bo because he sent a private message telling me that 
 John, despite his shortcomings, is right to equate intellect with SOM. He'll 
 likely deny it and then contradict his own denial a few sentences later. And 
 you'll deny it to, I bet. Probably by simply dismissing this criticism as a 
 personal attack. But it's not. It's based on what you said above. It's 
 simply not true that we can't put our finger on it and those of us who are 
 not stuck in the problem space are not trying very hard to solve the 
 problem. What we're trying very hard to do is show you that this problem has 
 already been solved by Pirsig and an increasing number of other 
 philosophers.  How many times have I posted quotes from other philosophers 
 who also reject SOM? Too many to count; dozens or maybe even hundreds!
 
 What really kills me about this epic case of incorrigibility is that one can 
 only remain stuck on the problem by ignoring MOST of Pirsig's work. I could 
 fill twenty pages with quotes showing that Pirsig has already put his finger 
 on the problem and the point of his work is to offer a solution to this 
 problem. That's what the anti-intellectual gang invariably does around here. 
 Cogent explanations and textual evidence never seems to have any effect on 
 the people in this gang.
 
 What has become an urgent necessity is a way of looking at the world that 
 does violence to neither of these two kinds of understanding and unites them 
 into one. Such an understanding will not reject sand-sorting or 
 contemplation of unsorted sand for its own sake. Such an understanding will 
 instead seek to direct attention to the endless landscape from which the 
 sand is taken. This is what Phaedrus, the poor surgeon, was trying to do.To 
 understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that PART of the 
 landscape, INSEPARABLE from it, which MUST be understood, is a figure in the 
 middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape without seeing 
 this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part of the 
 Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha 
 

Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 8, 2014, at 12:02 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 Let me summarize my main arguments: 1) the word intellect connotes
 science but the goal of the MoQ is ART and Science combined.  So I have a
 problem with that connotation and 2)  intellect has an epistemelogical norm
 - intuititive imagination - that is unaccounted for in the simple term
 intellectual.
 
Ron:
I think the main problem is the beginning assumptions about what
The term intellect  means, to you.
Several definitions mention it as a faculty of the mind, a function of 
consciousness, the act of critical
Thinking. But you by-pass those entries and hold to what interests you. That 
traditional misunderstanding, which is what it is,
A traditional misunderstanding of the meaning of intellect handed down by the 
Greeks. That misunderstanding is objectivism. Robert Pirsigs project
Is to correct this misunderstanding.
That's why it's important to read Plato and Aristotle and understand 
The origin of the Greek meaning and tradition of intellect. The project is 
about the recovery of a tradition of thought before misinterpretation divided 
it. Art is born when out of the many bits if information derived from 
experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of which they 
are unified whole.
Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.

Knowing in the truest sense concerns
What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in being 
aware of the intelligible. 

It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self 
sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best.
- book Lambda

To the Greeks knowing what is best
Is the divine aspect of being.
 
 JohnC
 
 PS:  By respond I mean without resorting to because RMP said so.
 Since's it's Pirsig's terminology I'm taking to task here, something more
 is needed to defend it than the mere fact of what Pirsig said.
 
Ron:
How else are we to tie into what we mean. This is a site dedicated to his work.
 
 
 On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On Jun 7, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
 
 Hi Folks
 
 DMB is making a very valid point here.
 The two people (John C and Ian) who were (and appear to still be)
 attached to Bo's SOM = Intellect are also the two that are having the
 hardest time getting their heads around the problem space/solution scenario
 that several people here have commented on, supplied evidence for and
 generally given a crystal clear explanation about!
 I'm having a really hard time understanding why you can't (or won't)
 make the transition.
 There is no problem here and as DMB has re-iterated over and over, stop
 confusing the problem with the cure!
 I'm sure both of you will say that you have disagreements with Bo and
 his flawed interpretation but the bottom line is you're still stuck in that
 particular mode. This is similar to when myself, Arlo, Dan, etc. say that
 we have minor disagreements with some small areas of the MoQ but overall we
 are all in agreement with the vast majority of it. You two appear to be
 doing the same thing a la Bo - your disagreements do not overcome your
 general adherence to his mistaken and inaccurate interpretation. Until you
 get past this you ARE going to be stuck in the same place as when Bo left.
 No amount of evidence is going to shift you because you will just keep
 ignoring and/or denying it.
 
 There are none so blind.etc.
 
 Horse
 Ron sez:
 We have to remember that these folks have invested a lot into this point
 of view. It has become a way of life, who they are. Because they
 essentially define themselves by this point of view, attacking it is
 basically an attack on their person. Changing
 That point of view means a restructuring of who they are.
 Plus I think John has such chip on his shoulder concerning DMB that he
 will do anything but admit he has been mistaken and Dave is correct.
 There seems to be a lot of ego involved.
 There is this romanticism about painting themselves as the lone brujo
 Of RMPs examples fighting the system.
 Granted, they exercise the muscle of explanation and polish our rhetorical
 skills, but it does get tiresome and ridiculous at some point and impedes
 The progressive dialog.
 
 .
 
 
 
 
 On 06/06/2014 17:28, david wrote:
 Ian said:
 
 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 we all sincerely believe intellect scores over (mere) feeling.
 Carry on girls.
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 If we refers to John and yourself, then yes. You're still stuck where
 Bo left off, which is equating SOM with intellect. This, for the tenth time
 at least, is a matter of being stuck in the problem space. It's funny
 that you should mention Bo because he sent a private message telling me
 that John, despite his

Re: [MD] Art fine art

[Ron Kulp]

Ant,
I would add, in addition to that list,
That anyone who pursues Philosophy
Seriously, educate themselves and become acquainted with the traditional 
problems if philosophy.
By reading the essential works of Plato and Aristotle's metaphysics
One can gain a better understanding of just what RMP is trying to accomplish.


-Ron
 

 On Jun 6, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
 
 Ant McWatt comments:
 
 Yes John I've already noticed your half baked grasp of LILA and there's 
 little evidence that you have read any other supporting literature 
 surrounding the MOQ either.  Until you do make a genuine effort with the 
 latter, you're really wasting your time on this discussion group.  Though I 
 think you are largely sincerely in your contributions here, if you don't do 
 your MOQ homework, your posts will have little relevance to the various 
 discussions that occur here and, in addition, you won't be able to make the 
 most of the contributors here (certainly Arlo and DMB who really do have a 
 good grasp of the MOQ - as defined by Robert Pirsig)!
 
 As you say that you already have a high stack of reading to get through, 
 I'd suggest that you start with SODV (Subjects, Objects, Data  Values) a 
 short summary of the MOQ (only a few pages in length - with diagrams) which 
 Robert Pirsig originally presented at the 1995 Einstein Meets Magritte 
 Conference.  I know it has helped various people get their head around the 
 MOQ over the years.
 
 It can be found at Horse's moq.org website.
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

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:19 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 How does that - feeling informs intellect - in any way conflict with
 what I said?
 Ian
 
Ron quoting Ian:
  - interpersonal
 behavioural issues aside - we all sincerely believe intellect scores
 over (mere) feeling.
 
 Carry on girls.
 
Ron explains:
The sarcastic ending to the statement
Suggesting that we all believe intellect scores over feeling coupled with the 
Bo comment plus the history
Of your gripes and complaints about
How others on this forum ask for clarity and precision as a basic requisite for 
contribution to a philosophy forum, is what lead me
To believe that you think the problem
With this forum is that it asserts intellect over intuition.

We all know what the problem is with intellect, that's of course if we all 
understand what RMP is saying.
THAT is the problem with this forum. Shit tons of misinterpretation 
And miles of MD time attempting to
Correct those misinterpretations by
Those endorsed by the author himself 
And addressing the incoherent bitching and moaning of pussies like you who 
can't deal with that.

Boy, the day you mount a decent 
Well thought out argument concerning a valid criticism of ANYTHING I will fly 
to where ever you are and buy you lunch.




 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
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

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:19 PM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 So, we're about where we were when Bo left us.

Ron:
I don't think that is so, this forum is miles past that point. Past Marsha 
Past a lot of the interference of just
Poor intellectual practices. It is not
As noisy and wild but it is more progressive and now posses a greater sense of 
direction and practical purpose. Some of the best
Posts I've read here have been forwarded in the past 8 months.
Especially those on topic with pedagogy.
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

[Ron Kulp]

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

Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

 On Jun 1, 2014, at 2:41 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 dmb,
 
 
 John replied:
 I am a bit confused about how intellect can be the 4th level, when intellect 
 is by definition - the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, 
 especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. And while I can see 
 using the term to mean something different than objectivity, I wonder if 
 that's a good move, in the end, since words with private definitions don't 
 communicate well.
 
 
Intellect is a term used in studies of thehuman mind, and refers to the 
ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, 
and about how to solve problems. Historically the term comes from the Greek 
philosophical term nous, which was translated into Latin as intellectus 
(derived from the verb intelligere) and into French (and then English) as 
intelligence.
Discussion of the intellect can be divided into two broad areas. In both of 
these areas, the terms intellect and intelligence have continued to be used 
as related words.

Intellect and Nous in philosophy. In philosophy, especially in classical 
andmedieval philosophy the intellect or nous is an important subject connected 
to the question of how humans can know things. Especially during late antiquity 
and the middle ages, the intellect was often proposed as a concept which could 
reconcile philosophical and scientific understandings of nature 
withmonotheistic religious understandings, by making the intellect a link 
between each human soul, and the divine intellect (or intellects) of the cosmos 
itself. (During the Latin Middle Ages a distinction developed whereby the term 
intelligence was typically used to refer to the incorporeal beings which 
governed the celestial spheres in many of these accounts.[1]) Also see: passive 
intellectand active intellect.
Intellect and Intelligence in psychology. In modern psychology and 
neuroscience, intelligence and intellect are used as terms describing mental 
ability (or abilities) that allow people to understand. A distinction is 
sometimes made whereby intellect is considered to be related to facts in 
contrast to intelligence concerning feelings.[2]Intellect refers to the 
cognition and rational mental processes gained through external input rather 
than internal.
A person who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and critical or analytical 
reasoning in either a professional or a personal capacity is often referred to 
as an intellectual.


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

[Ron Kulp]

Main Entry: in·tel·lect 
Pronunciation: \ˈin-tə-ˌlekt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from 
Latin intellectus, fromintellegere to understand — more atintelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a :  the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will 
:  the capacity for knowledge b :  the capacity for rational or intelligent 
thought especially when highly developed 2 :  a person with great 
intellectualpowers

Websters online

No mention of the term objective

 On Jun 1, 2014, at 2:41 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 dmb,
 
 
 John replied:
 I am a bit confused about how intellect can be the 4th level, when intellect 
 is by definition - the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, 
 especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. And while I can see 
 using the term to mean something different than objectivity, I wonder if 
 that's a good move, in the end, since words with private definitions don't 
 communicate well.
 
 dmb says:
 That's a completely bogus argument because Pirsig's terms are nothing like a 
 private definition.
 
 Jc:  Tell me how any assertion that begins with I'm a bit confused
 can be completely bogus.  Are you claiming I know everything?
 
 Dmb:
 
 (millions of copies sold) And a dictionary's use of the term
 objective certainly doesn't justify your misinterpretations of
 Pirsig nor does it address my criticism. Your response is a very weak
 and transparent deflection - as usual, John. It's an evasion, not a
 answer.
 
 Jc:  it was a question, Dave, not an answer.  A million copies sold
 can still be a private language.  Every book is a private exchange
 between a reader and a writer.  If the writer's terminology spreads to
 the public, that's something that doesn't involve him.  It involves
 his readers.  My personal experience is that nobody uses Pirsig's
 terminology in my life except this space, and my friend Steve.  So
 that's why it seems like a private language.
 
 And everywhere else, intellectualism means objectivity.
 
 
 
 John said to dmb:
 ...And one other thing, it seems silly to have defend myself from charges of 
 anti-intellectualism, simply because I question our use and understanding of 
 the term.  I doubt there's any activity more intellectual than questioning 
 what intellect is.
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 Instead of addressing the actual criticism, you've fabricated a very silly 
 one. I've given you a whole batch of very specific reasons but questioning 
 our use of the term is NOT one of them. Your mistake is that you can't 
 distinguish SOM from the intellectual level of the MOQ.
 
 Jc:  No, my problem is with translating the ideas of the MoQ, into the
 real world where I communicate with loved ones and friends.  To them,
 advocating intellect as the highest level seems pretty self-serving
 because you kind of have to be intellectually -oriented to even
 conceptualize being that way and not many people are, or identify with
 that term at all, and thus it just comes off as self-serving.  Whereas
 urging people to put creativity at the top of their to-be list, has
 immediately good results.
 
 Dmb:
 
 You treat rationality itself as if it were the problem, rather than
 the defect that the MOQ was built to repair. You can't tell friend
 from foe or the baby from the bathwater. It's just sloppy, careless
 thinking.
 
 Jc:  Well I'm open to cricitism, Dave.  But you don't seem to get very
 specific in your attacks, with which points of my thinking are
 defective.  You seem to treat everything I say as defective and myself
 as defective and thus I can't really take your criticism too
 seriously.
 
 I've said this before, affirm the good parts too, so that I know
 you're thinking and not just reacting, and it would help our dialogue
 a lot.
 
 Also to stop trying to lobby to have me ejected - admit that my input
 is worthy in some way - even if it's a lesson in how to school the
 ignorant - then I'll be able to perceive the value of your criticism.
 
 Dmb:
 
 And yes, of course you SHOULD have to defend your claims and assertions - 
 just like any other decent human being who cares about intellectual honesty 
 and fairness. Why do you think you're above all that? Your contempt for this 
 practice is bizarre.
 
 Jc:  Wait a minute, you haven't even admitted my right to be here, so
 how can you pick apart my contribution?  For a philosophy guy, you
 sure aren't very logical.
 
 Dmb:
 
 It's definitely one of the things that makes you look so profoundly
 anti-intellectual. Even as you deny your anti-intellectualism, you are
 putting on display and flaunting it most conspicuously. Do you really
 not see the irony and hypocrisy? It's really quite hilarious.
 
 Jc:  I see the irony and hypocrisy, and it's not funny at all.  In
 fact, its quite sad.
 
 
 
 
 John said to dmb:
 Why is it [straw man] the most common fallacy?  I'd say it's because in 
 order to argue a point, we have 

Re: [MD] Why study philosophy?

[Ron Kulp]

 On May 30, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 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
 
Ron:
In order for hypothesis to be meaningful, conceptualization 
Must be skillful. It's a guid to
Belief and action, you seem to be
Saying that the whole point of discourse is to arrive at truth,
The whole point is to arrive at
Meaning, if you don't have the skills
It's highly unlikely your hypothesis,
No matter how creative, will have
Any significant meaning.


The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (a non-profit 
organisation based in the U.S.) defines critical thinking as the intellectually 
disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, 
analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or 
generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, 
as a guide to belief and action.



 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
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?

[Ron Kulp]

 Ian had said:
 
 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

Ron:
From the death of expertise

Today, any assertion of expertise produces an explosion of anger from certain 
quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims are 
nothing more than fallacious “appeals to authority,” sure signs of dreadful 
“elitism,” and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue 
required by a “real” democracy.
But democracy, as I wrote in an essay about C.S. Lewis and the Snowden affair, 
denotes a system of government, not an actual state of equality. It means that 
we enjoy equal rights versus the government, and in relation to each other. 
Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities, or 
equal knowledge.  It assuredly does not mean that “everyone’s opinion about 
anything is as good as anyone else’s.” And yet, this is now enshrined as the 
credo of a fair number of people despite being obvious nonsense.
 
 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:
 

Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

 On May 27, 2014, at 4:57 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron said to John:
 
 The problem space is where American culture lives, but I would not say that 
 is where the contributors here at the MD live meaning the mental space deemed 
 the problem. So attacking them as part of the problem does not support your 
 contention.
 
 
 John replied:
 My contention is what I make it.  I hadn't really thought of attacking the 
 problem of anti-intellectualism here in MD because everybody who contributes 
 here seems pretty intellectual.  Maybe too much so, but I gotta add that 
 intellect needs balancing sometimes, not suppression.  I think being in our 
 heads is good, we just need to be in our hearts also.   Attacking the 
 heartspace, because its not the headspace, is the wrong move.  imho.
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 John, you totally missed Ron's point. The problem space is SOM, the problem 
 addressed by the MOQ, not anti-intellectualism. Even further, the criticism 
 is that your anti-intellectualism is connected to your failure to get out of 
 the problem space. That is to say, you keep attacking intellect here in the 
 MOQ discussion group as if it were SOM, as if it were still the problem.  
 
 Ron replies :
Thanks for pointing that out, I was struggling with where I went wrong in that 
statement and how to clarify without driving John off. It was getting kinda 
wordy
 
 Ron said:
 What good is freedom when you are too stupid to make good quality 
 intellectual decisions? Is being a slave to biological patterns truly leading 
 a life that's free?
 
 John replied:
 I'd settle for good social decisions.  Quality intellect is rare.
 
 
 
 dmb says:
 Is somebody making a case for the freedom in biological values? I hope not. 
 That would be lame. I wonder what a good social decision looks like without 
 intellect doing the deciding. Isn't that what it means to have a society 
 that's guided intellect rather than tradition? 

Ron:
I was trying to tease out where John really stands when he uses the term
Freedom he seems to have a bone to pick with intellect and authority leaving 
only two places to go.

DMB:
 
 One point really worth stressing, I think, is that we can never discern the 
 difference between good ideas and bad ideas without intellect.
 
 One of the objections sometimes raised (against an intellectually guided 
 society) is that some ideas are bad ideas. Intellectual static patterns of 
 low quality should be trumped by social patterns, they might add. But, again, 
 we can never discern the difference between good ideas and bad ideas without 
 intellect. That's what we mean by intellectual values. It's not that we're 
 supposed to love every idea just because it's an idea. It's the quality of 
 the idea that matters, of course, and that's why we're supposed to care about 
 things like clarity, coherence, consistency with the evidence, honesty, 
 precision is the use of words and the relations between concepts. These 
 aren't arbitrary demands or oppressive rules used to squelch dissent or 
 anything like that. They are just some of the most common marks of 
 intellectual quality. Ideally, you want to raise this to an art form and 
 those will be some of the likely ingredients. The art of rationality requires 
 intellectual quality an
 d 
 then some. You gotta, gotta have it - even if it's not enough all by itself. 
 It's time to re-integrate the passions, the affective domain of man's 
 consciousness, Pirsig says. Likewise, James says our best ideas will be 
 produced by thinkers who use ALL of their faculties. That's intellect in the 
 solution space, which is not to be confused with SOM (or with that mean and 
 cruel community college teacher who didn't like you).
 
 
 Ron:
Thanks for clarifying Dave, that is where I was headed with it. The ear marks 
of intellectual quality.
Social quality is lost when no one knows what you are talking about.
Or worse misunderstood .
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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

[Ron Kulp]

John,

 On May 25, 2014, at 3:56 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On May 22, 2014, at 1:55 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com
 
 [JC to Ant]
 ...
 
 
I speak of technique in Ellul's French pronunciation and
 meaning - not craftsmanship, but industrialized, imitative, copying.
 
 Ron:
 When I google technique I get:
 technique (tɛkˈniːk) or technic
 n
 1. a practical method, skill, or art applied to a particular task
 2. proficiency in a practical or mechanical skill
 3. special facility; knack: he had the technique of turning everything to 
 his advantage.
 [C19: from French, from technique (adj) technic]
 Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins 
 Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
 Where are you getting that meaning from?
 
 
 
 Jc:   As I said,  Jacques Ellul.- The rationality of technique
 enforces logical and mechanical organization through division of
 labor, the setting of production standards, etc. And it creates an
 artificial system which eliminates or subordinates the natural
 world.
 
 Ron:
Neve heard of it , what were you saying about plain speech and common meaning?
 
 
 John Carl:
 To my mind, eradicating the distinction implies intellect uber alles  A
 sort of victory for technique, for classical intellect in owning all the
 space.  Perhaps I am wrong, and this is exactly what all you who proclaim
 this MOQ of yours, SHOULD be, in which case I metaphorically spew you
 from my lips and fight you to the end.
 
 Ron:
 A I believe there we have it again
 You need something to fight against.
 Even if you have to create it yourself.
 
 
 Jc:  Hm.  I don't know, maybe.  When I feel I'm in a fight, whether I
 want to be or not, I seek a rational object to struggle against. Even
 if I have to create it myself.  Which explains atheism in a nutshell.
 
Ron:
I think what you are struggling against is that traditional value
Of anti intellectualism. The one that
Hates intellectualism no matter what the explanation. That blind faith that 
says thinking too much is evil and those that promote it are evil too.
 
 John Carl:
 But I don't think Pirsig meant to eliminate art, or intellect, but to get
 them back together and get along with one another.
 Ron :
 He is not eliminating anything but
 A misunderstanding. That misunderstanding being that art
 And intellect are distinct when they
 Essentially meant the same thing originally.
 
 
 Jc:  You mean back when the Greeks started it all.  Ok, fine, but we
 don't live in those simpler times, we live now and intellect has
 evolved into something completely different than it meant then.  And
 intellectually guided society, IS here.  All the great mathematicians
 go to work on Wall Street, now.  Haven't you heard?  Back then they
 did Philosophy.  Now they get rich.
 
 It's not that getting rich is bad, per se, it's just that it's
 different than philosophy, or art.
 
 Ron:
But that's not the all if intellect, that's the all of greed. It's the all of 
intellect bereft of morals and ethics.
 
 By not offering any kind of explanation for your beliefs ,
 You are not really advancing anything
 But your own personal gripes and justifying your presumed deficiencies
 In the effective communication to other human beings.
 
 
 
 Well... pardonez moi, mr landscaper :)  My bushy demeanor is bothering
 you and you wanna prune it back a bit.  I get it.  Let me put it this
 way, I can only communicate one on one.  I can't put my terms, into
 somebody else's terms, when everybody has different terms.  I'm sure
 you know this, but James turned down the presidency of the American
 Philosophy Association when it was founded, because he didn't think
 you could do philosophy with multiple people from multiple situations
 and different symbolic life-stories.
 
 Well he knew you could, it just takes years of work. And the MoQ adds,
 there has to be a lot of caring.  So if you don't care to communicate
 with me, do like dmb and just skip over and ignore my foolish
 ramblings.
 
 
 Ron:
Philosophy isn't for wimps John, get over it and use that plain speech we all 
understand. Or do you just talk out your ass?
 
 
 
 You are belittling and insulting and you sound more white than the whites 
 you condemn. Brother..
 
 It's getting embarrassing .
 
 
 Jc:  An interesting word, embarrassing.  I have to think what you
 might mean by that
 
 A:  every time I criticize dmb you cringe at the embarrassing nature
 of the dialogue.  And then when ant jumps in to help, only it's all
 vitriol and rancor without true explanation, it's embarrassing.
 
 B:  You feel like a Father, to me, a mentor, somebody you have guided
 and nurtured for years, and now I end up like this - embarrassing.
 
 C:  You don't like what I say and how I bring a note of annoying
 counter-argument to the MD and its as bad as Marsha was and that we
 cant' come to some common

Re: [MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

 
 
 On May 23, 2014, at 12:33 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Ron,
 
 
 Jc prev:
 
 
 The MoQ intellect, includes the heart - ethical imperative toward the
 good.  Absolutely, I agree.
 Ron:
 Then why argue over the problem space as if that is what is being
 supported in Pirsigs work?
 
 Jc:  Because the problem space is where we all live?  And unless we can
 apply Pirsig's work directly to problems, then it's just another book in
 a
 world full of books.

Ron replies :
The problem space is where American culture lives, but I would not say that is 
where the contributors here at the MD live meaning the mental space deemed the 
problem
So attacking them as part of the problem does not support your contention.
 
 Page 309 -The intellectuals of the 60's sympathized with
 lawlessness
 because they perceived social codes as the common enemy.  But the
 Metaphysics of Quality concludes that this sympathy was really
 stupid.
 
 Ron:
 Stupid is a good word for it.
 
 JC:
 Sadly, yes.  Often the case when a people are set free, they don't know
 how
 to responsibly hand their freedom at first.  But its still better to be
 free.
 Ron:
 What good is freedom when you are too stupid to make good quality
 intellectual decisions? Is being a slave to biological patterns truly
 leading a life that's free?
 
John Carl:
 I'd settle for good social decisions.  Quality intellect is rare.

 Ron:
That sounds kinda tough when you have a gripe against authority too.
You probably wouldn't settle for good
Social decisions because you rebel against both.
Again is a free man truly free when a slave to biological patterns?

 
 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
 
 
 
 -- 
 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