[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[John Carl]

Greetings Krimel,  I've been wanting to sit down and respond when I had a
bit of time to weigh your words carefully.  But that ain't today
unfortunately, so I'll just have to do as much as I can in the time I've
got.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> [John]
> And the biggest problem I have with moronists is thinking that randomness
> explains anything.
>
> [Krimel]
> I would like to think that puts you in a vanishingly small minority since
> randomness and probability theory underlie virtually every aspect of modern
> life.



John:

No doubt randomness and probability are very useful intellectual tools.  But
using these tools to explain the cosmos and being seems to me as silly as
using a hammer for a screwdriver.  Sure, you might be able to get the screw
in the wood, but the wood would be so torn and useless that the
accomplishment would mean nothing.

And that's the issue I have with randomness.  It means nothing.  Ya gotta
have meaning in your metaphysical stance or what good does it do you?
 That's the heart of my argument against the moronist position.  It doesn't
do any good to focus on randomness as ontology. What does that convey?  Just
any old random thing.  Why don't you just call it for what it is - Nihilism-
and be done?


Krimel:

 The story of John Nash,
> one of the founders of game theory, is well known and bares remarkable
> similarity to Pirsig's own biography, such as we have it.
>
>
John:  The similarity proves to me that being a genius can sure drive ya
crazy sometimes.  Thank randomness we're all spared that one, eh Krimel?



>
> [Krimel]
> It seems to me that the AWGI cult sees the value and future of the MoQ
> through the lens of their own navels. They would eventual place any future
> work in the field securely in the New Age section of your local books
> store.
>
> In contrast what you call the moronist view sees the MoQ as contributing to
> a metaphysical position that integrates all of the aforementioned aspects
> of
> modern life.
>
> Sadly, "better" like "bigger" is entirely a relative term.
>
> By the way how deep would you guess your navel to be?
>
>

John:

Well I don't see how the moronist view sees the MoQ as integrative, when
there is no such thing as "better", there's also no such thing as error.
 There's no such thing as thing.  The whole position completely fails the
pragmatic test of "betterness" when there is no betterness to be tested
against.

It's a shame, really.  You're such a bright guy Krimel, and you write so
well.  But the idea of there not being a good is exactly the same as the SOM
contention that we live in a values-free universe and thus ojiaewni. r9q2-
]03grf
iegal ksdkv
epojvj
Is exactly equivalent to profundity.

Your talents are being wasted, my friend.

Take Care,

John


PS:  about my navel, it depends on your unit of measurement