[MD] Trance state

[Ian Glendinning]

Well a further day has passed with no response by Bo to Ian or Ron ...
and Bo is corresponding on other threads ...

****
I am drafting this 5 minutes after Ron (X Acto) sent his, but holding
it as a draft in case Bo (and/or Steve / Andre) actually responds in
the "discrepancy" thread.

But this contains another issue I have with the "infuriating static
people" on this forum. They will debate up to the point where their
interlocutors post their detailed rational arguments, having already
accused them of some insane / irrational argument (or rhetorical
variants on that) ... and then ...

....

chirrup chirrup

chirrup chirrup

tumbelweed drifting by ...

Anybody see this weekend's Dilbert cartoon ;-)
http://dilbert.com/2008-11-30/
Regards
Ian


On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:35 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Bo, Platt,
>
> Dualisms include but are not limited to a percieved tension of opposites.
> Popular dualisms are:
> Subject/Object
> Male/Female
> active/passive
> good/evil
> 1/0
>
> Male/female and active/passive are used in many cultures and their languages.
> 1/0 illustrates Pirsigs grudge with an objective laden SOM. His real beef.
>
> Bo, Obviously, there is nothing I can say to prove to you that your theory is inconsistent
> even when I DO prove that it is inconsistent, which I have, to your silence.
> Like convincing a creationist, absolutley nothing will shake their blind faith
> in their own views, even under the most obviouse proof against them.
> It is my ascertainment that by your persistence alone SOL survives for it certainly
> does not stand up to current applicable thought and is obsolete
> as it currently is formulated.
> Having said this, even if SOL is accepted by Pirsig it is dead in the water
> and closed to dynamic change plagued by paradox and infinite reduction.
> If perhaps you were better read and better researched and did some real homework
> rather than just promote your own opinion of Pirsigs work, you may make a better case
> to support your ideas, but you do not and have not.
>
> As a consolation, western culture increasingly dominates the earth
>  knowing that SOL is only applicable to western culture, it will soon
> come to represent THE universal human condition, just as you say.
> Alas I think you have an up hill battle getting science to revert back
> to positivism and throw out subject/object for the use of DQ/SQ
> in their scientific explainations.
> In other words, not only is SOLAQI obsolete it is also fails to provide
> any clearer form of an explaination of scientific data.
> If it does, I'd love to see an example, a clear demonstration of it's worth.
> I have asked for this several times in the past, I have given clear examples
> of how and why Pirsigs interpretation works yet you have not offered even
> one example.
> It astounds me how much creedance you recieve by virtue of rhetoric alone.
> It amazes how you require not even a shred of support or evidence greater than
> an out of context misinterpreted Pirsig Quote to sway opinion.
>
>
> Pipe on pied piper, lead your mice to their just rewards.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 3:28:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Trance state
>
> Hi Ron
>
> 26 Nov.you cited Platt's:
>
>> Like I said, unless the intellectual level is SOM, the trance state
>> of    today's "intellectuals," Pirsig's analysis of our cultural
>> problems collapses. Then the MOQ would be a philosophic non-starter.
>
> and said:
>
>> As per our western society is concerned yes it is, in fact our
>> intellectual level is dominated by it. But let us not make the mistake
>> of calling SOM the universal intellectual level.
>
> If the 4th. level is "dominated by SOM" it means that intellect
> (supposed to be static) must be a valueless neutral "container"
> wherein all sorts of thought patterns (supposed to be dynamic) even
> contradicting ones like the MOQ and SOM . This makes the 4th. level
> "mind" and in a metaphysics that rejects the mind/matter template it's
> destructive.
>
>> Certainly it leaves out many other ways of making distinctions and
>> reasoning from them. All sorts of dualisms, not only SOM collect here.
>> This would cement MoQ as only applicable to our culture, I ask, why
>> limit it's uses? It's portability is it's beauty. It is Dynamic.
>
> Give me some examples of patterns you deem "intellectual" yet, isn't
> S/O-based..
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>