[MD] on the radio

Sun Dec 3 09:49:47 PST 2006

Hi DMB,

You said
Clarity serves intellectual truth and smoke screens serve bullshit.
That's all I'm saying.

I agree only in part. One thing I'd disagree about is the relationship
between clarity and truth. Simple things can be made clearer than
complex things, so this adage tends to favour "simple" truth -
actually a point I'm often trying to make - being too simplistic.
Anyway, the thing is, smoke-screen is not the opposite of clarity. By
choosing that word you are suggesting my "intent" is to obscure. All I
can say, is that is not the case. Taking a pop. Fair game as you say,
but let's cut to it ..

You also said.
I'm giving you a hard time about your preformance as a thinker, as a
philosopher who claims to be one of the MOQ's champions.

And you are entitled to do so, but ... I am already self-professed
"not a philosopher" and I "don't buy metaphysics" ... and you are not
criticising my thinking generally or on anything in particular, merely
a selection of my words expressed. You are criticising my expression,
not my thinking. My pro-MoQ motives are not "as a philosopher", I
leave that to the academic philosophers, but as a framework for a
pragmatic world view that supports good decisions in important
situations - or, whilst that suffers from lack of clarity - at least
casts doubt that simplistic decisions are likely to be sub-optimal.

Casting doubt, probably does lead to confusions and some lack of
clarity, but it's not the underlying intent.

When your declared motive is to underline the value of *anything* I
say, you'll excuse me if I don't find the closing quip too amusing. We
can stop this any time you like, I find dialogue only has value when
we're trying to be constructive.

Ian

On 12/2/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ian said to dmb:
> If most of that sentence was clear as a summary of MoQ, then I'm puzzled why
> you didn't just identify the key points that needed clarifying in the first
> place.
>
> dmb says:
> A clear summary of the MOQ!? Hardly. You merely made vague references to the
> MOQ as if mere proximity could lend support to the drivel.
>
> Ian continued:
> You seem to be using this thread to take a pop at me, using pejorative terms
> like "drivel", "narcissism"
> and "smoke screen" but I think we've narrowed down the specific points - we
> got there.
>
> dmb says:
> Using this thread to take a pop? That's just not true. Since you are
> apparently capable of producing nonsense on any topic, any thread would be
> just as useful.
>
> Ian asked dmb:
> Are you saying you are sceptical there is any relevance / connection of QM
> to MoQ?
>
> dmb says:
> No. I'm saying that I'm skeptical about your ability to say something
> intelligible and coherent on the topic.
>
> Ian said:
> What I'm exploring, and bringing in many metaphors from other people, is the
> nature of "in relation to". ..."In relation to"  The relationship is dynamic
> - no brainer surely - basic MoQ.
>
> dmb says:
> No brainer? Actually, I think it would be exactly wrong to say the
> relationship is dynamic. According to the MOQ all thoughts and things are
> static, are derived from DQ.
>
> >From page 64, middle of chapter 5...
> Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
> abstactions. ..Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the
> sense that there is a knower and a known,..."
>
> >From page 99 of Lila, opening of chapter 8...
> "There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished from
> anything else it doesn't exist. To this the MOQ adds a second principle: if
> a thing has no value it isn't distinguished from anything else. Then,
> putting the two together, A THING THAT HAS NO VALUE DOES NOT EXIST. The
> thing has not created the value. The value has created the thing. When it is
> seen that value is at the front edge of experience, there is no problem for
> empiricists here. It simply restates the empiricist' belife that experience
> is the starting point of all reality."
>
> When you add these together the idea is that things and the relationships
> between them are both static patterns drawn from Quality, the
> undifferentiated, primary empirical reality. So saying that the relationship
> is dynamic or that things interact dynamically is a very confused notion.
> Its drivel. In that sense it is a no brainer. Its not clear what it is
> you're even talking ABOUT. What is supposed to be in relation to what?
>
> Ian said:
> The relationship is "two-way" or directionless if you prefer - not only are
> the objects either end of this relationship subordinate to the relationship
> itself, but neither end (object or subject) has any "precedence" over the
> other.
>
> dmb says:
> I can't make any sense of that. The relationship of what is directionless?
> The subject/object gap? Quantum mechanics and the MOQ?
>
> Ian said:
> The relationship is characterised by Pirsig as "quality" itself - a
> "valuing" relationship, but is ultimately "ineffable". In some sense it is a
> "creative" relationship, nothing really exists without it, reality arises
> out of it. Ineffable or not (remember I'm not a metaphysician) I'm
> suggesting many metaphors used in sciences that explore complex causal
> relationships exhibit parallels that may be worth our understanding.
>
> dmb says:
> Causal relationships? Pirsig eliminates causality and replaces it with
> value. Cause and effect make sense in a SOM metaphysic, but not in the MOQ.
>
> Ian said:
> If you agree that exploring those parallel's is valuable, we can pick up on
> them, and take it from there; if you don't there will be little point.
>
> dmb says:
> Well, there are interesting issues worth exploring but I think its pretty
> clear that there is little point in exploring them with you. I think there
> isn't much point in exploring anything with you. If memory serves, the first
> thing I ever said to you in this forum was, "Huh?". We were talking about
> Pearl Harbor and WW2 when I said, "Sorry ian, but that makes no sense". And
> its been like that ever since. But in recent months you have offended me
> with your drivel and control freakiness countless times. Now I'm on your
> case so hard becasue I sincerely believe that your contributions here are
> worth less than zero, that people will only be confused and misled if they
> take you seriously, and so I'm making a case for that.
>
> I mean, this exchange has been all about just one of your sentences. After
> several attempts, you still have not made any sense of it. And I even said
> you could abandon the original sentence and just explain what you were
> trying to say. If you can't even explain your own opinions, what the heck do
> you think you're doing here? Yes, obviously, I'm describing your assertions
> in "pejoritive" terms. I think that's only accurate. But its not like I'm
> insulting your mother or your looks. I'm giving you a hard time about your
> preformance as a thinker, as a philosopher who claims to be one of the MOQ's
> champions. Given the quality of your posts, I think claims along these lines
> can have no merit. While there is no shortage of drivel around here, I feel
> that its fair to single you out because the contrast between these claims
> and your actual contributions very, very stark.
>
> I mean, its probably not fun to hear this but its fair game, isn't it? If a
> guy thinks another guy is handing him a load of bullshit, he should not let
> him get away with it, right? Which act is more aggressive and intellectually
> suspect, trying to bullshit somebody or calling somebody on it? Its likely
> that reads harsher than I mean it. I'm using "bullshit" in the philosophical
> sense; speech that respects something else besides the truth of the matter,
> that has no respect for truth and serves a different purpose. Clarity serves
> intellectual truth and smoke screens serve bullshit. That's all I'm saying.
>
> For the fourth time, or is it the fifth, what was that sentence supposed to
> mean? What were you trying to say? Each of your "clarifications" only adds
> more drivel. C'mon, this is a completely unloaded, open-ended question that
> allows you to explain an actual idea about the MOQ. Can you explain it or
> not? If I recall the statement in question began with something like, "What
> the MOQ adds to this is...".  It seemed the only part of the post that
> touched on the MOQ so it seemed important. After reading it a half dozen
> times and still finding no sense in it, I reached for my keyboard and fired.
>
> They shoot horses don't they? You know, when they don't have legs to stand
> on, Bang!
>
> Thanks
> dmb
>
> P.S. Ian, I don't love you anymore. The wedding is off. You can keep the
> ring.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
> friends module.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>