[MD] Good Mystic, Bad Mystic.

[MarshaV]

Hi David,

On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:03 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
>>> No, but the MOQ is fundamentally mystic and one of it's main opponents are mystics.   The way this issue is solved is by breaking up mysticism in two.  One type it supports, the other it does not.  The type it supports is that which recognises the value of clear, fixed, metaphysical  distinctions. 
>> 
>> This explanation may work for you, but it does nothing for me.
> 
> It does nothing, because you do not care for it - If you did care you'd see that it speaks to the issue I have with your brand of mysticism..  Until you care though, you won't see…  And you won't care unless you think that what I'm saying has value.  Right now you seem to think very little of what I say..  

I do not have a brand of mysticism.


> 
>>>>> "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."  
>>>> 
>>>> I agree with RMP's comment.
>>> 
>>> That's fascinating.  You agree with this comment?  Notice how he said "fixed metaphysical meanings"?  Not "supposed but not necessarily real or true" or "hypothetical" but "fixed metaphysical meanings"?
>> 
>> Please note that RMP uses the plural form "meanings".  He also wrote "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth."  I prefer to use the word 'patterns', and prefer to consider patterns as 'hypothetical'.  I think to consider patterns hypothetical is to broaden one's intellectual understanding.  It also is less likely to lead to intellectual arrogance.  It helps one become "unfixed", or better yet "unstuck".  I do understand, though, some people, even philosophers, may be uncomfortable if they lose sight of certainty.  
> 
> Yes.  You are fighting a straw man here as no one on here seems to support an idea of an absolute 'certain' truth or have any issues with multiple 'meanings'..  
> 
> Where's this bogey man you're so afraid of on here who claims that truth is absolute?  He must be pretty scary for you to feel the need to ensure that truth is only best seen as 'hypothetical'. 

There is no straw or bogey man.  I prefer to use the term 'patterns', which was RMP's choice and I prefer to think of patterns as 'hypothetical'.  I do not insist, or even suggest, that you take my position.


>>>> And I consider observation to be of two types:  seeing and knowing.
>>> 
>>> Why break it up?
>> 
>> Maybe sight and insight, or perception and conception.  I don't really have this worked out yet.  '
> 
> What's to work out? There's no ultimate 'truth' to the matter. There are only good useful ideas.  If you've got no good use for splitting them up then splitting them up is no good.  
> 
> I think you fear that in others that which you fear most in yourself.  It seems like you still think there is some ultimate 'truth' out there to discover.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Where did the subject of ultimate 'truth' come from?


>>>> Yes, the intellectual pattern labeled 'truth' is one of many intellectual patterns. 
>>> 
>>> Agreed. And truth is a label for the best intellectual patterns.
>> 
>> No, the intellectual pattern labeled 'truth' is ONE of many intellectual patterns.   You might want to define 'truth' as "a label for the best intellectual patterns."?   So now your definition has gone from "an idea which represents experience beautifully" to "a label for the best intellectual patterns".   Any more?  It's wack-a-mole!  No wonder you avoid offering a definition when I ask.  For your particular reasoning, in this case, should we totally ignore the dictionary?  
> 
> To be clear if you disagree with these definitions then you disagree with Pirsig:
> 
> "In the MOQ, and in William James’ pragmatism, truth is described as high quality intellectual patterns."

If the topic was concerning truth, I do not disagree with RMP's quote, but I prefer to use his term 'pattern' and I prefer to think of patterns as hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true).  


> And if you can't see that "a label for the best intellectual patterns"  is "An idea which represents experience beautifully" then that's quite surprising to me...

This is bits and pieces of commentary and not a definition.


>>> Yes. Value which is experienced. Pure empiricism.
>> 
>> What is you definition or explanation of "pure experience"?  How "pure" is it?  
> 
> Once again - if you disagree with the term 'pure empiricism' then you disagree with Pirsig:
> 
> "So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure."   

Sorry, my mistake, I thought you wrote 'pure experience'.  I do not disagree with this quote.

.
> Anyway - as the quote indicates it is pure in the sense that it is free of subjects and objects.

Okay.


> However your constant demand for definitions seems to indicate that you are trying to be an anti-intellectual.

Requesting a definition is anti-intellectual??? 


>  That is - you seem to despise that I claim to use words which describe reality truthfully.

Despise???  


> You're trying to use this against me, by demanding definitions - thinking I'm some kind of Platonist who claims that there are ideal absolute truths.  The best way, you figure, to respond to such a person is to constantly demand definitions thus pointing out, in your mind, that the definitions could never actually capture reality.

You are being a bit of a drama queen.  


> Could you be any more of a spooked out mystic?!

I am not a mystic.  


Marsha