[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[david buchanan]

Yep. Here's yet another example where I make a case, repeat the argument again and then the conversation just stops. Is it really that horrible to simply say, "Oh, yea. That's a good point. I see what you mean. Thanks for the help."? Why can't people stand to be corrected? Why should disagreement lead to a personal meltdown? Why are arguments not met with arguments instead of insults and excuses? Hell, I'm wrong about something every freaking day of my life. But so what? When your headache goes away and your mood improves,...

Oh, never mind.

Sigh.


 
> From: valkyr at att.net
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:20:55 -0500
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Capitalism: my experience
> 
> 
>    
> 
> I'm not in the mood.  I have a headache.      
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:01 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Marsha said to dmb:
> > To speak of a reality that is a monism using a language that is based on a dualistic reality comprised of subjects and objects is difficult.
> > 
> > 
> > dmb says:
> > 
> > It's more difficult to talk about monisms and dualisms than it is to talk about fish and breadsticks but that doesn't address the point. The point is that you're treating intellectual static quality patterns as if they were unpatterned, dynamic and ineffable. Concepts are not ineffable. When Pirsig says that, "any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation", he is saying that Quality is not conceptual but philosophic explanations are conceptual. (ZMM, Chapter 20) This matches the claim he makes in chapter 5 of Lila, where he says philosophical mystics, "share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside language". It matches what he tells us in chapter 9, where he says, "even the name, 'Quality' was a kind of definition since it tended to associate mystic reality with certain fixed and limited understandings." And then there is the explanation at the end of chapter 29, where qu
>  ot
> > es William James saying, "there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing". See?
> > 
> > He makes the same point when he says that the MOQ is a contradiction because metaphysics is a philosophic explanation full of concepts and definitions whereas Quality (DQ) is what you know prior to definitions, ahead of definitons.
> > 
> > To use the ineffable, non-conceptual nature of Quality to shut down a conversation about the meaning of concepts is, I think, not a legitimate move. I mean, dealing with difficult concepts is one thing but treating them as pre-conceptual and indefinable only confuses Pirsig's often repeated point. Does that point make sense to you? You see what I'm saying?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 		 	   		  
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
> > 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
> 
> 
>  
> ___
>  
> 
> 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/