[MD] Speed of Lighting, Roar of thunder...

[Krimel]

dmb,
Frankly, I think over the past few days: 
I have spewed out reams of substantive points. 
I have spell them out with detailed examples.
I have appealed to authoritative references.
I have called upon both Mythos and Logos. 
I have used prose and poetry. 
I have used multiple voices. 
I have consulted the archives.
I have attempted to evoke emotion.
I have appealed to reason.
I have pleaded and poked fun.
I have played with punctuation.
I have mixed and matched all of the above.

I apologize for the poverty of my efforts.

In the end the best I can do is as dust.

I have tried to take what you have said and respond to the substance of your
remarks as near as I can make it out. I am never sure whether I am talking
down to you or over your head and responses like this one do little to
clarify the mystery. If you were to accuse ME of posting too much I'd have
to buy it. At last we would have common ground.

If you see no substance in any of the styles I have attempted, I am at a
loss. 

I don't know what else to tell you except:
"'Vanity of vanities,' sayth the Lord. All is vanity..."
"...'tis better to be a live dog than a dead Lion..."

Your friend,
Krimel, The Bullshit Artist

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

Krimel said:
Life without concepts is life on life support. For those who object, I
recommend advanced directives. If you want to stay plugged in, you are going
to have be engaged. The decision isn't between concept and no-concept...
It's a matter of which concepts.


dmb says:

Right, the choice is not between concepts and no concepts. To put it simply,
the choice is just whether or not to add feelings to concepts. The choice is
between unfeeling, amoral objectivity and an expanded and more well-rounded
form of rationality that includes the affective domain. The choice is
between cold, calculating logic and a fully human form of intelligence. We
are adding Quality to intellect, adding the pre-conceptual experience. This
is NOT about getting rid of concepts or choosing no concepts. It's about the
expansion of rationality, the improvement of rationality and reason. 

It's hard to believe that you sincerely think anyone, except maybe Marsha,
is suggesting we abandon concepts. I think it's just one of the straw men
you've slapped together. I think you're disputing a position held by nobody.




Magnus said:
What I'm saying is that since we have this tool of the levels, and since it
*is* a rather good fit for dividing this undefined which is going on outside
our concepts of it, why not try to make it a better fit?


dmb says:

You're probably not going to believe this but the levels do not divide the
undefined. They re-define what is already defined, they re-conceptualize all
the stuff that is already in the encyclopedia. The undefined (DQ) is the
only thing that supposed to be left out of the four static levels. The
levels are not supposed to be representing an objective, pre-existing
reality either. The static patterns are supposed to agree with experience,
not an objective reality. In the course of experience we feel the pushing
back and resistances and persistences and from this we construct ideas of an
objective reality. And these are very handy ideas, but the MOQ says they are
ideas. There is an element of realism here. We know from experience that
experience is not just whatever we want it to be. Our concepts can fail
quite miserably when they are tested in experience. That's why the MOQ
sometimes seems like a form of realism. But there is also the important
claim that "man is a participant 
 in the creation of all things", which is also expressed in the assertion
that reality as we know it conceptually, including yourself and the physical
universe, is one big set of analogies. That's why the MOQ sometimes seems
like a form of idealism. But it's not really idealism or materialism, it's
radical empiricism. Experience is reality and that is the starting point for
all subsequent conceptualizations. This is not experience OF the physical
universe or experience BY a subjective agent because those are among the
conceptualizations, among the analogies derived from experience. As Pirsig
and James say, the primary empirical reality is neither physical nor
psychical. It logically precedes this distinction. 
 

Krimel said:
I think the problem with the AWGIs is that they think the MoQ should unite
east and west by having everyone convert to Buddhism. Kind of like seeing
the similarity between "cause" and "preference" and thinking that means
atoms are decision makers. Or seeing the Romantic/Classic split as an
invitation to spend your life singing Kumbaya.



dmb says:

Wow. You've presented three straw men in just three sentences. There is
something admirable about the efficiency of your production rate,
unfortunately what you're producing is bullshit. (I mean "bullshit" the
technical, Frankfurtian sense.) The liar cares about the truth enough to try
and conceal it and the idiot thinks he can have his own private truth. But
the bullshitter, Frankfurt says, simply doesn't care what's true. Maybe he
even thinks there is no such thing as truth. The bullshitter says what he
say for some other reason. Maybe he's trying to make a sale or win an
election or just make himself look good. As is usually the case with straw
men, the purpose of these three particular pieces of bullshit is to
construct an opponent that is easy to defeat. And of course that's a very
handy escape hatch for anyone who cannot or will not engage with the
positions that people actually do hold. 

Is it possible that you sincerely believe "the AWGIs" want to convert
everyone to Buddhism? Do you really think that anyone is standing up for
atoms as "decision makers"? Is it honestly your view that construing the MOQ
as an invitation to sing camp-fire songs from the '60s? Is any of that even
slightly plausible? I honestly don't see how.

And if your vitriol is a result of my failure to seriously engage with these
"issues", then your anger is just a straw man who's been piled on top of
other straw men. You get upset when I won't defend ridiculous positions that
you made up. Meanwhile you deny the existence of the actual positions, whole
schools of thought, when pressed against you, like reductionism, scientific
materialism or physicalism as it's known these days. Not to mention general
squareness, which covers all that and more. This is why I think you're
insincere and unserious. When it comes to a failure to engage the issues, I
honestly think it's all on you. My answers and criticisms could be wrong,
but at least they are sincere. Your criticisms, as these four straw men will
testify, are pure bullshit. Straw men like these don't deserve a
philosophical response. They deserve a match.