[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Case said to dmb:
You did a fine job in the Kant's Motorcycle thread of stating what you saw 
as the difference between Pirsig's bike and Kant's scooter but it all just 
looked like a paint job to me. Throughout the thread I became increasingly 
convinced that Pirsig's Quality is indistinguishable from Kant's TITs. I 
don't recall you doing much to disabuse me of this view.

dmb says:
Indistinquishable? But, but ,but there are no Kantian things-in-themselves 
at all in the MOQ. It simply makes no sense to equate the two. I offered an 
explanation of Radical Empiricism so you could begin to see why this is so 
but you just brushed it off and declared that you were still thinking about 
Kant, rememeber? In fact, according that that brand of empiricism, TiTs are 
ruled out. Asserting them is against the rules, so to speak. I finished the 
paper I was working on. It doesn't mention Kants TiTs, but it should provide 
a pretty clear picture of Radical Empiricsim. If you're interested I could 
send it to you. But the short answer is that Radical Empiricism does not 
allow a metaphysician to posit any entity or cause that can't be known in 
experience. As you very likely already know, this would exclude metaphysical 
entities such as God and Kantian things-in-themsleves.

Case said:
More to the point at hand I have voiced my skepticism about the usefulness 
of static levels but I regard them as totally secondary to the central 
points of the MoQ. Aw hell, I have disagree with lots of what you guys seem 
to think is central to the MoQ and I have offered alternative views that as 
far as I can tell can only be dismissed by slapping SOM on their bumpers. I 
really don't think the MoQ is ONLY about mystical monism or mysticism in any 
form. I really don't think the MoQ is anti-theistic. But so what. Even 
Pirsig said dissenters are welcome here. Is this not true. Are you two 
saying that dissent is unwelcome and can be simply dismissed with "He's SOM, 
oh well."

dmb says:
Yea, that's it. I'm all about crushing the dissenters. I'm not into having a 
conversation or expressing a disagreement with your assertions. I'm only 
interested conducting an inquisition to enforce unsupported dogma. I'm not 
comparing epistemolgies or discussing metaphysical starting points, I'm just 
enforcing a gag order. Why? Because high quality beliefs must be crammed 
down throats. Everybody knows that. Presenting a rational explanation is 
useless. Makng sense is beside the point. Force is the only means of 
conversion. Yea, that's it. And slavery is freedom.

But if I may be a little more serious, I wonder why you reject the MOQ's 
mysticism and anti-theism? Is that what its really about? Are you rejecting 
these elements because they disturb your personal religious beliefs? I think 
these two elements, as well as the social-intellectual distinction, are 
quite threatening to just about anyone who subscribes to a traditional 
religion. But I do not recall you making any kind of rational or 
philosophical case against them. You sort of just express disapproval or 
shrug it off with a dismissive attitude...

Case said:
Because if you are comfortable browsing the New Age section, fine. Have 
another mocha and pretend it's philosophy, if it suits you. I think the MoQ 
belongs in the science section.

dmb replies:
See, this sort of comment is based on the assumption that mysticism is 
merely a pretentious New Age thing and that it is at odds with real 
philosophy and with science. But its simply a matter of historical fact that 
philosophical mysticism has existed in the West from the begining and, 
unlike the museum of creationism, it is not at odds with science or 
rationality.

Case said:
...As I have stated many, many times I think the first cut of metaphysics 
into stasis and dynamics is a brilliant move. But mystifying the terms is a 
big step in the wrong direction. How saying this makes me SOM remains a 
mystery... This is the first party I have been to where anyone has accused 
me of being smart or sane. It really is hard to know how to take that. I 
guess I really just dropped in to drop a steamer in the punchbowl.

dmb replies:
Mystifying the terms static and dynamic? I think you read this distinction 
as if it were all about physics. You read it in terms of scientific 
materialism and this constitutes a misconception. I mean, its kind of hard 
to imagine how one could read LILA and conclude that Pirsig doesn't equate 
DQ with the mystical reality and that the MOQ is not a form of philosophical 
mysticism. Its not the sort of thing we find between the lines or that's 
otherwise merely implied. The author says so explicitly. You're free to 
disagree with him, of course, but it hardly makes sense to read the MOQ as 
if he didn't say these things. I think it doesn't even make much sense to 
minimize these elements unless the the point is simply to reject the MOQ. In 
that case, given the context, it seems that the least a dissenter could do 
is provide some good reasons for this rejection. For that purpose, scientism 
and mockery just doesn't cut the mustard.

Its like quoting the bible at an atheist. Doing so only shows that you don't 
understand his position. That would be a case of missing the punchbowl.

And finally, please accept my apology for characterizing your views as 
"sane" and the like. I'm also sorry that I refered to your momma as a 
"reader". Sometimes I lose my temper but its only because I care.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song.  Get a customized station.  Try MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001