[MD] Step One

[MarshaV]

dmb, 

My reasoning is my own based on reading the MoQ literature, Buddhist texts, personal experience and insight through meditation.  Your understanding of the MoQ is too shallow, page deep in fact, and not normally worth my consideration.  You, too, are one of those who has a hissy-fit if you do not get agreement, and your intellectual competence seems to lead you only to slinging insults.  So impressive!  

Quite frankly I love it when you write this type of post because they will last forever in the archives.   Keep them coming.  


Marsha





On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:15 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said to Dan:
> In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the Intellectual Level: ...Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.”  The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner.
> 
> 
> Dan replied:
> You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But then you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all up. Where in Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a formalized SOM? Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and choosing what you agree with? Maybe you and John and get together and relive the old times.   Why do I bother?
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Let us pause for a moment to consider Marsha's spectacularly bad reasoning skills.
> 
> First, we have Ant's dissertation telling us that science, theology, math and philosophy all count as intellectual patterns. Surely this means that each of them would be a subset within the larger intellectual level. Subject-object metaphysics is certainly not the only philosophical stance. (And as we all know, rejecting SOM is central to the MOQ, not to mention other anti-SOM philosophers like James and Dewey.) So SOM is a subset of a subset of the intellectual level. 
> 
> Let's use "modes of transportation" as an analogy. In this analogy Ant's quote says that planes, trains and automobiles are modes of transportation. Marsha then reasons that "modes of transportation" is defined as a Ford truck. This is just a spectacularly bad category error. It's the kind of bad logic that says 15% of the total is equal to the total. There is no way to make that add up. Imagine a painting bigger than the gallery it hangs in. Imagine taking that analytic knife away from Phaedrus and telling him there is only one way to carve up reality. 
> 
> Imagine an very unskilled person got a hold of that knife and used it to cut off her own hands. I mean, even if the reasoning were sound, the consequences would be a complete disaster. If subject-object metaphysics were equal to the entire intellectual level then no other metaphysics could be possible. If that equation were true, then the MOQ would not be possible and this discussion group would be quite pointless. If we accept Marsha's conclusion, then the MOQ is defined as the very stance it rejects and it can't really serve as an alternative SOM and Pirsig's root expansion of rationality is doomed to end in failure before it ever starts. If SOM is the enemy and SOM is the intellectual level, then intellect is the enemy. Then science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are the enemy. The consequence is anti-intellectualism and intellectual paralysis.
> 
> Marsha's reasoning is spectacularly bad and the consequences of her conclusions are even worse. It is a tour de farce of staggering stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		 	   		  
> 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


 
___