[MD] Another parallel

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
Your explanation doesn't work for me.  RMP also said to "Kill all intellectual patterns". 


dmb says:

If your aim is to kill all intellectual patterns, then you're doing a fine job. 

Seriously, Marsha, I think its a huge mistake to take the MOQ as anti-intellectual. I think the overall idea is to make reason subservient to Quality, which is to say he wants concepts to be secondary while experience is primary. This fits in with the whole hierarchy of the MOQ. The quote you refer to is about the freedom that comes from following DQ rather than static concepts. But when this "killing" is transferred over into discussions about science, philosophy or any other intellectual domains, the idea is wildly inappropriate. In fact, Pirsig says, "Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress DQ as it is for church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself." See, in this context, the idea is to improve intellectual patterns dynamically, not kill them.

Marsha said:Your use of the word SOM is an objectification.

dmb says:
Honestly, I have no idea what you mean by that. If you're accusing me of believing that "SOM" has a specific meaning, then I'm guilty as charged. 

Marsha said:
'Just' philosophy journals as opposed to infiltrated into mythos.

dmb says:
Since philosophy journals can only exist within the mythos, this makes no sense to me. If you just mean a wider audience, the whole culture as opposed to a specific tradition within that culture, then I still don't really see what you're getting at. 
Just this week, you've expressed distrust of all the media, academic journal and intellectual patterns and fairly recently you were knocking science, and I don't just mean Krimel's reductionistic materialism but science in general. That pattern of opinions is basically just anti-intellectual and nihilistic. If you have such a low opinion of all things intellectual, if you really believed that stuff, why not just take up meditation and abandon philosophy altogether? 

Marsha said:Did you happen to watch the director's cut of the movie I suggested: The Four Feathers?

dmb says:
No. I wanted to but Netflix doesn't have it. 

Marsha said:
The MoQ is a broader perspective because it is a view closer to reality; its power is not dependent on Radical Empiricism, or for that matter, William James, John Dewey, John Stuhr, Sandra Rosenthal, Hegel or Heidegger.  It's power is dependent on experience.


dmb says:
Right, the MOQ is broader because it is based on direct experience. That is exactly the "power" of radical empiricism. (The first four philosophers named above are radical empiricists who also endorse this "view closer to reality".) It seem that you have inadvertently agreed with my point. 


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009