[MD] Good Mystic, Bad Mystic.

[MarshaV]

Hi dmb,

On Aug 28, 2012, at 6:06 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> dmb:
> You can honestly say that reading this collection of quotes DOESN't explain anything?


Marsha:
It is a list of quotes without any explanation whatsoever.  I assume if you wanted the list of quotes to represent an explanation you would have explained how it did, but you didn't.



Marsha




On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:57 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi dmb,
> 
> 
> On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:22 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> dmb constructed some of Marsha words:
>> It is true that patterns may include a collection of words, and I take patterns as hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true).  I think considering patterns to be hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of patterns and makes room for new possibilities.  ...I'll stick to considering static patterns of value as hypothetical.  ...I did not state that 'truth' was wrong, bad or didn't exist.  I stated that I value more highly using the word 'pattern' rather then 'truth'; and I prefer to think of patterns as 'hypothetical'.  ...I prefer to think of objects of knowledge (patterns) as hypothetical.  Once one accepts the MoQ's fundamental principal that the world is nothing but Value, then 'expanded rationality' occurs when an individual transforms the natural tendency to reify self and world into the natural tendency to hold all static patterns of value to be hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true.)  By using 'hypothetical'    ...After much thoug
> ht
>> , I wrote a very careful explanation of why I prefer to think of patterns as hypothetical:
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> I don't appreciate the way you chop up my statements, rearrange them and remove them from their context.  I suppose to misrepresent my comments and try to confuse everyone is the best you can do.
> 
> 
> 
>> dmb says:
>> Marsha is using the MOQ's critique of SOM against the MOQ itself. She is inappropriately using Pirsig's attack on Objective truth to attack Pirsig's own pragmatic truth. She has confused the sickness with the medicine. That's how she ends up denigrating truth, philosophy, the MOQ itself and intellectual values in general. It's a heart-breaking pile of incoherent drivel, confusion and conflation of the operative terms, and big heaps of contradictory nonsense.
>> 
> 
> 
> Marsha: 
> So now we get your affected opinion piece served with a bunch of unrelated, unreferenced, unexplained quotes.  I suppose the reader is suppose to construct some kind of coherent argument for himself?  The quotes seem to be from ZAMM, but who can know or even guess.  The MoQ isn't even mentioned.  Are those quotes somehow suppose to represent some kind of evidence?  Guess, Baby, guess!  No clearly articulated premises, no clearly explained evidence, no direct conclusion, and absolutely no argument.
> 
> You keep repeating the same intellectual malfunctioning.  It's boring.  I am personally quite tired of you groundless attacks.  If others find you fascinating, that's fine with me.  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
>> THE PROBLEM - Our modes of rationality are no longer adequate.
>> 
>> "Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world. They are taking it further and further from that better world.  ...the whole structure of reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be seen for what it really is...emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty." 
>> "I think the basic fault that underlies the problem of stuckness is traditional rationality's insistence upon "objectivity," a doctrine that there is a divided reality of subject and object. For true science to take place these must be rigidly separate from each other."
>> "When traditional rationality divides the world into subjects and objects it shuts out Quality, and when you're really stuck it's Quality, not any subjects or objects, that tells you where you ought to go."
>> "the thing to be analyzed, is not Quality, but those peculiar habits of thought called 'squareness' that sometimes prevent us from seeing it. ..The subject for analysis, the patient on the table, was no longer Quality, but analysis itself. Quality was healthy and in good shape. Analysis, however, seemed to have something wrong with it that prevented it from seeing the obvious." 
>> "He did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was reason." The problem is that "Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other" back in the days of Plato.
>> 
>> THE SOLUTION - A root expansion of rationality through the inclusion of Quality at it's center; rationality, like motorcycle maintenance, becomes a form of art.
>> "He [Phaedrus] felt that the solution started with a new philosophy, or he saw it as even broader than that...a new spiritual rationality...in which the ugliness and the loneliness and the spiritual blankness of dualistic technological reason would become illogical. Reason was no longer to be "value free." Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality." 
>> "What's emerging from the pattern of my own life is the belief that the crisis is being caused by the inadequacy of existing forms of thought to cope with the situation. It can't be solved by rational means because the rationality itself is the source of the problem. The only ones who're solving it are solving it at a personal level by abandoning 'square' rationality altogether and going by feelings alone. Like John and Sylvia here. And millions of others like them. And that seems like a wrong direction too. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the solution to the problem isn't that you abandon rationality but that you expand the nature of rationality so that it's capable of coming up with a solution." 
>> "Now I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through the formal recognition of Quality in its operation." 
>> "I think that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and brings it far closer to actual scientific practice."
>> "A motorcycle functions entirely in accordance with the laws of reason, and a study of the art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of  rationality itself."
>> 
>> 
>>