[MD] Sex, Rape and Law in a MOQ

[118]

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:06 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark said:
> It sounds to me like you are putting Quality in some kind of Truth category.  How do you get around that with your interpretation of Quality?  These distinctions are man-made, where does the truth come from?
>
> dmb says:
> No, I'm just saying that the difference between the biological and the social a widely known distinction. This distinction is intellectual and fairly obvious and I really don't see how anyone can get through college without bumping into it repeatedly.

[Mark]
Ooooh, is this another dmb deconvolution?  So, if you went into the
philosophy department at the University of Chicago, you would come out
believing all that?  Phaedrus didn't and he attempted to rectify
Western thinking, despite what all the professors said.  I don't see
any meaning in being a drone.  You can bump into all these illusions
and call them Truth if you want to, I don't.

Obvious?  Only if you are trained to look at things through Western
Thought.  There is another approach, it is the Quality approach.  What
is obvious to you may be wrong.

dmb
 None of this has anything to do with subordinating Quality to truth.
Truth is a kind of static quality, namely intellectual static quality.
And this particular truth is just about the distinctions between our
cultural values and our animal instincts. Marriage confines the
acceptable limits of the expression of our sex drive and the
prohibitions against murder put restriction on the expression of the
instinct to violence and aggression. As far as I know, no serious
person would dispute this. That basic idea explains quite a lot. It's
one of the most useful generalizations ever invented.

[Mark]
Hmmm...No serious person?  Is this another dmb deconvolution?  Just
say what you mean why don't you.  Common spit it out.  No serious
person?  What is that supposed to mean?    Was Hitler serious?  How
about Stalin?  Are you one of those?  No serious person, indeed.  What
are you getting at here dmb with this notion of serious person?  Is a
bus driver serious?  What about a nun?  Was Phaedrus a serious person
when he disputed the knowledge of his professors?

All I can say dmb is that you are quite stuck when you state that you
are not subordinating Quality with Truth, and then claiming that to be
True.  Please dmb, try thinking in terms of Quality, that is, a
creative process which arises and expresses itself.  Marriage is an
institution to progress Society.  There is no control over the
biological level, the concept of a sexual urge is an intellectual
construct.  The intellect is controlling itself, not biology.  It is
making static patterns and then controlling them.  Marriage arises out
of the biological level, as an expression of Quality.  If there is any
control at all, it is the other way around.  The biological creates
the social which then results in marriage, not the other way around.
Quality is about creation, not of domination.  Never was, never will
be.  How's that for a Truth?
>
[dmb]
> Oh yea, I'm talking to a guy who thinks Stephan Hawking is a loser and who thinks evolution is a stale idea. It seems you have a fondness for rejecting some of the best ideas in circulation. For a minute, I forgot who I was dealing with.

[Mark]
Oh, oh, another rational statement from dmb, above, your logic is
striking.  I can see why others think you are a great philosopher.
This is a standard dmb deconvolution which you present above.  Where
is the logic in what you stated?  Is this another one of your sacred
Truths?  Go ahead, dmb, wrap yourself in these truths, you are missing
the boat completely.
>
dmb
> Anyway, for those who are interested in truth, you might want to know that Pirsig agrees with the pragmatic theory of truth, particularly James's version of that truth theory.
>

[Mark]
OK, now this is another standard dmb technique.  When he has no
logical explanation he blames it on Pirsig.


> "James said, 'Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it.' He said, 'The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief.' TRUTH IS A SPECIES OF GOOD. That was right on. That was EXACTLY what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a static intellectual pattern WITHIN a larger entity called Quality." (Lila, pp. 363-4. Emphasis is Pirsig's)

[Mark]
Whoa!  Are you throwing darts a the book to come up with a quote to
prove something?  What you present above is very dogmatic, like it is
Truth (and good, I suppose).  This sounds more like a religion.  I
don't know how you can rationally bring that quote into this
discussion. Here is the statement:

James said;
The true is whatever is good
I think what James said was Truth,
Therefore it is good

Does it have to be good to be truth?  This would be what this
statement creates.  Therefore, death is true and good.  There are so
many problems with what you present, that I don't even want to start.

dmb, like I said, you are stuck.  You are presenting the control of
one level over another to create a truth.  You then use this truth to
present Quality.  How can you do this?  If you want to start your
typical deconvolution of the discussion in your next response, go
right ahead.  I grew up in a big family, I saw this all the time as a
sibling growing up.  It is just plain silly for a grown man.

Try explaining how the social construct of marriage and the
intellectual construct of biological urge controls the biological
level.  Marriage is a social construct which control the social level,
it cannot go past that.  The biological level operates on a different
set of principles that we can only make intellectual constructs of.
All we can do is say that we are controlling our constructs which
means the intellectual controls the intellectual.  The levels are
created from the bottom up, not controlled from the top down.  That is
impossible if you subscribe to Quality.  That is just typical Western
thinking where the True is encapsulating all else.

If you want to blame Pirsig for the way you see things, go right
ahead, you don't have to be responsible.  You are just following
orders.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>