[MD] Another parallel

[MarshaV]

My goodness I'm not a complainer, but a contrarian.  Not this, not that...



At 06:55 PM 7/14/2009, you wrote:

>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
>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/



____________

"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain 
and increases inner strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama