[MD] Intellectual activity

[aesuszynski]

(alice)

OK, this is really scarey and I'm probably not prepared to enter at this 
time, but I am a daring soul so I'll put my toes in and see what develops. I 
came to your forum through conversation with Ian of Psybertron Asks. In fact 
it was he who introduced me to "Zen and the Art, etc.". I have been enjoying 
blogging for the past year and a half and have been at the same time 
continuing my readings in such things as evolutionary psychology and 
cognitive science. I am a very amatuer philosophy fan. And so I ask you to 
be not kind, but at least a little indulgent because the vernacular flies 
not easily off of my tongue.

"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."

This is interesting to me because I have been engaged in conversation (on 
the internet) with many who espouse the conservative or libertarian view. 
While I, too, find myself comfortable with the message of those philosophies 
, I always find myself asking "How do we know it works, when in fact it has 
never been tried?" I am specifically refering to capitalism.

I guess in the days of Rockerfeller, there was a form of laissez faire 
capitalisim, but it was very shortly thereafter quelled when people felt 
they were being taken advantage of. and a version of American socialism 
began to emerge, and then came the depression and so on and so on.

I also have had an argument with folks about whether the right to property 
is an inherent right as Locke said. I have said that it is only a right if 
others agree to it.

So while I am generally a conservative, I see holes in the ideas and have 
concluded that things are not so very black and white.

I hope I have not overstepped and I'm not altogether sure I have done this 
properly..


> [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
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 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/