[MD] Spinning our Wheels, metaphorically speaking

[John Carl]

Yummy!

dave for lunch.  Should be a tasty snack.

Before we even begin, I'd like to ask you how you can possibly refute the
warranted assertability of my belief, when there is no possible epistemic
basis for asserting a Truth, by which to evaluate God's existence?

I mean do you even understand the stuff you write?  Or do you just repeat it
like a trained parrot?

William James was no atheist.  You'll have to suffer some variety of
religious expression occasionaly  if you're gonna make him your guy.

dmb says:
>
>  If you do academic or scientific work and get paid for it there is nothing
> wrong with that. But if the paycheck is given priority so that you twist
> your ideas around to keep from getting fired, then you're selling out.



Ok, suppose you spend ten years supporting a certain set of beliefs, along
certain lines that defines as "your school of thought" and then one day come
upon ideas, facts, a contrary school, that convincingly argues against your
static belief system.  What then?  Do you abandon your school at the first
sign of opposition?  Or do you fight for what you used to believe?

And how much of the decision is based upon economic needs for completing
your degree, getting along with the rest of your school, and how deeply
would a person need to question themselves before reaching the conclusion
that they were actually "selling out" by sticking to their guns?

It seems far simpler to just convince yourself that you're no sell-out
(almost any past evidence will do) and therefore by definition all your
decisions are good and noble.  This is the way most people approach
questioning their own values, but I ask from an MoQ perspective, is it any
good?




If there are scientific findings that tell us certain kinds of economic
> activity pose a danger, say the fossil fuel business and climate change, and
> you hide those findings in order to protect the financial interests that are
> posing that danger, then you've put cash over truth, not to mention putting
> people at risk for the sake of a buck.
>
>

AHa, but you are describing a different kind of conflict.  A social conflict
where power is being sought and science is just a tool for gaining power.

And anyway, "cash over truth" sounds like about as good a description of
Jamesian Pragmatism as any I've heard from you yet.




> Pirsig uses "The Graduate" as an example of what it means to sell out.
> "Plastics!", says some middle-aged square to the young graduate, played by
> Dustin Hoffman. What should he do with his fancy degree in science? Should
> he find a position where he can do pure research? Nah, the square tells him,
> he should go into plastics because that's where the money is. It's a form of
> prostitution. Might as well sell your love to the highest bidder. If one
> really has to do such a thing in order to survive, then it's better than
> dying. But whoring yourself sure ain't nothin' to be proud of.
>

depends on who you're talking to, I'm sure.  I met inner city type guys on
construction projects in Sacramento, and they talked about the noble whores
- the ones that'd only do it for food stamps - i.e., to feed their babies.




>
> We see exactly the same objection in the annotations, where Pirsig gets
> increasingly irritated by the theological overtones and finally complains
> about trying these theists trying to smuggle their goods in through the back
> door. I mean, come on John. Pirsig is quite consistent and unequivocal on
> this point.


You really can't follow an argument very well dave,  the whole point of this
here thread is that taking those sections out of the context of the whole is
missing the direction Pirsig is headed, and just like Pirsig started out
prejudiced against Jamesian Theism, but came to value Jamesian insights, so
does a dynamic thinker engage with the words of the text in a dialogue, a
conversation that gets somewhere and not always where the reader/thinker
expects, based upon prejudged static ideas and preconceived connotation.

An active mind can do this, without getting bogged down in adhering to
politically and academically correct mantras.

Thinking is fun!  You really should try it some time.




> If Pirsig is reading this stuff, then he is watching you try to smuggle
> theism into his philosophy. Do you think he'd be okay with that and somehow
> grant an exception in your case?
>
>

You are really hilarious, dave.  Good luck with all that "logical
argumentation" stuff that philosophers sometimes have to do.  You're really
gonna need it.

IF Pirsig is reading this stuff.  That's a huge if.  Big enough for us to
actually look at it for a minute.

Ok, let's assume he is.  I mean, I know I would if I were him.  I'd be
curious, wouldn't you?  I mean, it wouldn't take strenuous effort to log on
and see how the evolution of your metaphysics was coming along...

So I take that as given.  And I always have.  Every word I utter, every
phrase I write, straight to God's ear and RMP's brain.  Why not?  By doing
so I tend to focus a little more, write a little better, try a little
harder.  So whether he does or not, it serves my, yours and DQ's purpose to
do so.  That makes it pragmatically true, right?

Now, the second attempt on your part to squelch my word, I'll also go along
with.  Yes, if my influence and words seemed offensive to bob, counter to
his design, antithetical to his goals, I believe he'd figure out a way to
stop me.  A quiet word to Horse would be simple enough, who I'm sure would
heed the author's wishes.  And yet, I post promiscuously and I don't get
shut down.  I type my tripe and don't get shut up.

This should cause a realization on your part, but I'm not sure if you get it
yet.  You seem to have trouble thinking things through.

Now suppose I assert, that just like with God, I'm in constant communication
with bob?  What if he whispers he loves me, in little ways and little
notices that only I perceive and only I know?  What if I sense his presence
in the patterns of others?  Those here who've absorbed his teachings and
patterns, added their individuality, and magnified the ripples growing
outward?

What if I sense the innate harmonic resonance of the bob in me, with the bob
in Arlo?  In Platt?  In Ham?  In Horse?  Even, it must be said, in Bo?  For
the story of bob is surely the story of "won't back down in the face of
overwhelming social approbation" that we all identify with a little, and Bo
proudly displays to all.

How can you argue against that?  I speak, and I continue to speak, and I'm
encouraged to speak.  Your own argument against my word, confirms the value
of my continued sharing.

I'll make you, and this list a deal.  I'll resign from the list if you can
get one other person to agree with you that I should.


On the condition that I get to pick the person.



I pick Platt.




> I know you get real bent out of shape over this and tend to my complaints
> as prejudiced personal attacks but look at what Pirsig is saying, man. I'm
> not making this up. Pirsig's view of such things is right there in front of
> you. All I can do it put it on your plate. But you've got to pick it up and
> chew on it for a while. Otherwise, the busboy is going come along and take
> it away, thereby throwing a perfectly good meal in the trash.



The busboy won't have to bother himself because pretty much anything you set
on my plate, I'm gonna toss myself, knowing the antagonistic place it comes
from, even if it looks good it's probably been poisoned or spit upon.    I
don't trust the value you add.

But I don't take your antagonism personal, dave,  I mean,  you don't even
know me.

I don't think you even know yourself.

But thanks for the dialogue.  I have to say, you make mockery fun.

And try that "thinking" thing I was recommending.  You'll get more
realizations on your own if you can think for yourself.


John