[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[John Carl]

Well said, Andy.


> Andy said:
> I have no position on whether this gets them the "intellect" distinction.
> I'm not going to get into what you two are doing, which is arguing over
> which algorithm is best for sorting sand. You aren't proposing to do
> anything with the piles except stamp your name on them. It just squeezes all
> the value out of the metaphysics to treat it this way. ... To properly
> condemn what you're doing I feel I should name it. So I'll call it Definism.
> I don't know what to call my position.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I disagree. The levels aren't supposed to be some undefined mystery.
> They're part of the structure of the MOQ and they're supposed to be used as
> an explanatory tool and moral compass.


Gee dave, I didn't know you even believed in "moral compasses".  You never
mentioned this before.  From what you've been writing, I thought you just
knew automatically what was right and wrong through your experience, and any
argument that was expedient for promoting your view was what was therefore
automatically the right one.

So you would you  agree with me that the MoQ is a constructed compass, and
would you agree that this compass is, metaphorically speaking, supposed to
point to Quality?

And would you agree, just like a real compass is affected by strong pulls
and metal nearby, the moral compass we construct here is pulled "off-kilter"
by various strong personalities and ideas?

And would you then agree also, that getting the most accurate "read" is
dependent upon a fair and open hearing of various views, experiencing the
variety of religious experiences shared, in total, and then extrapolating
the direction of DQ - our "true north" as opposed to our "magnetic north" by
taking into account the pull of the individual personalities, vectored in
with the pull of DQ?


Because if that makes sense to you, as it does me, then what is your problem
exactly?  Why is your main message on these pages so often focused upon
negativism and rejection and exclusion?

Why do you want to reduce pluralism of views instead of expanding?  Can you
really be that intellectually timid?

It puzzles me immensely, it really does.




> The difference between social and intellectual levels, which is what Arlo
> and have been talking about, is supposed to help in explaining the present
> social and political conflicts as well as the conflicts of the 20th century.
> I mean, I think this is how we're supposed to treat a metaphysics.
> "Definism" gets you into trouble when you're dealing with dynamic areas like
> art, mysticism and the like but doing metaphysics or any other philosophy
> requires the use of concepts and definitions. Intellectual "static patterns"
> are called that because they're "stable" and "structured". Concepts and
> definitions are supposed to be stable and structured, but hopefully not
> stale or rigid or brittle. A whole metaphysical system is like a motorcycle
> and so some of the parts need to be very precisely defined if you
>  want the whole thing to get you down the road.
>
>

I agree dave,  but what I think Andy is pointing to is that there comes a
time when you've done enough tinkering with the machine, and you have to
actually get on it and start it up.

If you're just anally defining every single aspect to the last my-knute
detail, so that it will work when you finally get up the nerve to use it,
you'll never really understand what all that building and defining and
tinkering was about.


And, you'll miss out on a really nice ride.



I admit, my style is more to throw my legs over the beast and go.  But
that's what I mean by differing pulls on the compass needle.  "Deal with it"
isn't meant as an aspersion.  It's meant to remind us to confront the
realities of our lives instead of wishing stuff would be different.

Deal with it.

Ok, that one WAS meant as an aspersion.

John