[MD] Intellectual activity

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt]
So dichotomies are "useful rhetorical tools" sometimes, but at other times,
depending on your political persuasion, are to be  shunned because there is no
such thing as "absolute evil." To quote from Pirsig:

[Arlo]
Distortion. Why are you playing this game again?

[Platt]
No "shades of grey" when it comes to societal morals in this case.

[Arlo]
You omit Pirsig's own comment on this.

" This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality is to trash
all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike sub­ject-object
metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive
truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're
permitted only one construction of things-that which corresponds to the
"objective" world-and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or
excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more
than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth."
One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with
the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must
be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can
then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an
art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting,
but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of
intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality
than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and
current patterns of values."

Seems pretty straight-forward and clear to me.

[Platt previously]
I think I know how the objection to hard and fast dichotomies arises. It's
almost a given among humanities professors that nothing is absolutely true --
that truth consists of shades of grey. At the same time they hold that shades
of grey are absolutely true, thus contradicting their own assertion. Either
that or they tumble into the mad abyss of infinite regress.

[Arlo then responded]
Another jab at the Academy. Damn those villainous "humanities professors"! Why
can't they think more like Rush Limbaugh, who sees the world clearly and
correctly?

[Platt]
Arlo is back again to bomb-throwing, exhibiting typical liberal anger and hate.
He can't help but inject venom and demonizing into an otherwise civil
conversation.

[Arlo]
Classic "Pee Wee Maneuver". Vilify and then complain about being vilified. Why
these games?

[Platt]
He just doesn't seem to accept that someone other than his nemesis, Limbaugh,
can have a low quality opinion of relativist thinking that dominates in
university humanities departments. Perhaps when he reads what Ken Wilber has to
say in the quote below, he'll have a change of heart. But I doubt it.

[Arlo]
I accept that Limbaugh has a low quality view of everything related to the
Academy, as Pirsig said, "that's just right-wing politics".

I dismiss Limbaugh's view in favor of Pirsig's, as provided in the quote above.

[Platt]
When Arlo claims "never absolutely true" he merely repeats the relativist
doctrine of humanities professors which Wilber demonstrates is "profoundly
incoherent." Even Pirsig has fallen under the influence of culturally-derived
truth by stating, "There are many sets of intellectual reality (read "truth")
in existence, and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but
that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of
values."

Pirsig saves himself by hedging his statement with "in part," meaning  some
truths can be considered "absolute" -- like H20.

[Arlo]
The "in part" has nothing to do with "absolutes". He is saying that "one reason"
(in part) we perceive some sets of intellectual reality to have more quality
than others is is cultural values. How on earth do you warp that into "H20 is
an absolute truth"? It is good SOMist thinking though, which doesn't surprise
me, of course.

[Platt]
Lest it be forgotten, the statement "There are no absolutes" is  profoundly
incoherent.

[Arlo]
Not incoherent... paradoxical and recursive. Which lie at the heart of any
attempt to codify "reality". 

[Platt]
Finally, Arlo hates Limbaugh because Limbaugh is effective in puncturing his
liberal collectivist theories. Why else does he keep heaping derision on the
man? He probably blames Limbaugh for the liberal defeats 2000 and 2004. On the
other hand, he says individuals like Limbaugh and brujo are no more important
than anybody else in society. Cognitive dissonance anyone? 

[Arlo]
I don't hate Limbaugh. We've had this discussion, I agree with him on some
points. But you know this, as we've had this discussion. The rest of this is
not even worth responding to. One thing, though, you call "liberal collectivist
theories", and the only person I've quoted, and at length, is Pirsig. I realize
you like to ignore the things in Pirsig that don't fit your ideologically
driven agenda, but its funny you ridicule what is merely long, beautiful and
informative quotes by the man who wrote the philosophy you claim to agree with.
But, as I've said repeatedly, and as Pirsig was astute to recognize, "that's
just right-wing politics"... as you prove so strongly.

Arlo