[MD] humpty dumpty

[MarshaV]

Dave,

You've combined two separate posts that address two separate subjects (see subject line).  I have no idea what you are talking about. 

Marsha 
 
 

On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:26 AM, David Thomas <combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 8/2/12 2:03 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote speaking of DMB:
> 
>> He has NEVER provided the MoQ definition of 'intellectual' so that I might
>> thoughtfully explain my position or defend against the accusation of
>> 'anti-intellectualism'. I also expect him to present evidence citing the exact
>> statements, and posts they came from (to include the context), with an
>> explanation of why they are anti-intelligent and nihilistic.   This he has not
>> done
> [Dave]
> I think you had the lead on answering your own question when you posted
> this:
>> Marsha in a separate thread:
>> DVD:  The MOQ at Oxford
>> Section:  Church of Reason
>> Approx. time:  01:30:00
>> 
>> Questioner:  This idea of reason and rationality as a cage in itself; in what
>> sense can it be a cage?
>> 
>> RMP:  The cage itself is a definition.  The definition is a cage.  --- Latin
>> phrase --- It's an old Aristotelian construction.  You set limits on what a
>> word is.  You set limits on what your experience is.  And those limits which
>> you set, in order that you can manipulate these words correctly, are also a
>> cage for that word; they can't go beyond it one way or another.  One of the
>> reasons we don't define Quality is because if we do we cage it and if you
>> don't define it then all of a sudden the Quality spreads out all over the
>> Universe, sort of speak.
>> 
> [Dave]
> DMB cannot give you a Pirsig definition of "intellectual" because as Pirsig
> indicates above definitions are cages. Neither could he give you a Pirsig
> definition of "social", "organic", or "inorganic." RMP uses analogies,
> examples, and context to suggest their meanings thus avoiding the trap
> having to define the word or to tell you which definition of a word with
> multiple meanings he's using.
> 
> No where does he use this more than when using the words, quality, values,
> and morals. Quality has fourteen possible uses as a noun two as an
> adjective, value - nine as a noun three as a verb, morals-five as a noun.
> But he uses them interchangeably as though all of one words definitions are
> synonyms of all the other words definitions. Which of course they're not. Oh
> but they are in his system because of his axiom that "everything is
> Quality." 
> 
> For example when asked about the social level he responded that it was
> limited to humans. Reasoning, you got to stop it somewhere! Why?  If in
> English speaking reality right now, the broadest and most common use of the
> word is:
> 
> "The term SOCIAL refers to a characteristic of living organisms as applied
> to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to the
> interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective
> co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and
> irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social
> 
> Why would one arbitrarily limited it to humans with no real reason? Well
> reason and rationality are a cage. It is much more creative, intuitive,
> dynamic, and might I say convenient to divide things up to fit your theory
> rather than to worry about fitting it to the nature of reality. The same
> thing can be said about his creative split between social and intellectual.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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