[MD] kill all intellectual patterns

[118]

Hi Ron,
Just came across this one.  These days I only read those that start with my
name in it, and I only get the first few lines in preview.  I will try to
respond.

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:25 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> > Ron:
> > What is being called for is consistancy and clarity in meaning and if
> > clarity is the hallmark of a good explanation, contradiction runs
> > counter to that end.
> >
>
> Mark:
> What is being called for is convincing rhetoric which provides the reader
> with an awareness of Quality.  This philosophy is based around Quality and
> a metaphysical argument is presented towards such end.  I fail to see
> anything that has to do with Quality in Ron's post, so I must assume that
> it is simply an aside.
>
> Pirsig would be the first to say that what he underwent was a serious break
> in what is termed rational (or sane) thought.  His tale is that of a hero
> who travels to far off lands, has adventures, and then comes back to reveal
> what he learned.  In any discussion of Quality, we should remember that the
> subject matter is not always rational as the West would have it.  We should
> also keep in mind that what Pirsig is presenting is an attempt to get us to
> think differently.  MoQ is an attack on rational Western thought.  Any
> balancing act must deal with this reality. Remember, Phaedrus was a wolf.
>
> Ron:
> First of all Phardrus, the Greek namesake does not mean wolf, that was
> a misinterpretation BUT Phaedrus the Socratic dialog between Socrates
> and the young philosopher who is entranced and "turned on" by a speach
> he heard is about what makes the best sort of oration, in otherwords,
> what makes a good rhetorical explanation "good"? which brings to the topic
> of clarity.
> Now lets look at your constant gripe that no one , as you judge them,
> is talking about Quality. Remember since Quality IS reality "every last
> bit"
> ALL conversations are based in it so that we can never fail to discuss it.
> Consequently anyone with a firm grasp of what Pirsig means by the term
> "Quality" would never make that accusation.
> On to "thinking differently" the subject matter IS rationality since
> rationality
> concerns what is best but what Pirsig does attack is rigid thinking and
> focuses
> reason on rationality, why we hold the beliefs that we posses,
>  Not just in the west but any conditioned rigid assumption.
>

Mark:
Yes, I am familiar with this dialogue.  I was quoting Pirsig.

When you say that Quality "is" Reality, what exactly are you saying?  This
is a worthless statement.   Are you saying that the words have exactly the
same meaning?  This is absolutely irrational, sorry.  So when I am talking
about a dog, I am talking about Quality?  This makes the term Quality
totally worthless.  Pirsig has something to say about Quality, and yet all
he says is that we can replace the word Reality with Quality?  Please spare
me your silly sound bites.  Quality IS Reality?  REALLY.

Rationality?  Let me present you with the following evidence concerning
this.  When Pirsig was fully assimilated into Quality, he was considered
"insane" and had to go get treatment at a mental institute.  He was driven
there by an officer of the law.  Secondly, there is reason and there is
logic.  As you probably know, Parmenides used logic, not reason.  In fact
logic can tear reason to pieces.  A good example of this was Zeno.  He
completely destroyed any form of reason with his logical paradoxes.   So,
please spare me this "reason" of yours.  Reason can be used to prove
anything you want.  Lawyers are good at reason.  Thirdly, rationality is
built on certain assumptions.  Pirsig can be rational, but it is not in the
traditional Western fashion.  The subject matter of MoQ is rationality
built on a foundation of Quality.  Once we try to place Quality within a
Western structure all is lost.  All we have then is a clever idea and not a
form of awareness.

>
> Now your posts are full of assumption about a mans work you do not
> clearly understand, your explanations are vague general and obtuse.
> As I recomended before, gain a better understanding by doing a throrough
> re-reading, create a better backround by reading the works of Plato and
> Aristotle not to mention W.James. at the very least, understand the
> problems
> being addressed.
>

Well, Ron, I would say the same to you.  Have you walked in Pirsig's shoes?
 Do you know what his awareness through Quality is?  All you can do is try
to interpret what he says in your rigid Western way.  That you would think
my explanations are vague is proof of this.  What are you looking for, some
kind of righteous truth?  Some cause-effect diagram?

Have you read the Vedic literature?  Have you read the Buddhist literature?
 Have your read the body of Taoist literature?  Have your read the Gnostic
literature, or the christian mystic literature?  Have you read what Rumi
has to say?  Are you aware of the Hermetic literature?  Are you familiar
with the Theosophic literature.  Do you know what the Sumerians wrote
about?  How good is your understanding of the mystical premises of
Pythagorus.  Have you read and understood the poem by Parmenides?

What your problem is, Ron, is that all you have is the Western point of
view.  I have read Aristotle and find him to be a conniving fool.  Do you
know how long the West thought that the sun revolved around the earth?  All
other places knew the earth revolved around the sun, even the Mayans.
 Aristotle made a complete mess out of the West, and paved the way for a
dogmatic Christianity.   I have read Plato and found him to say the same
things as Pirsig.  I don't think you have any idea what Plato meant by
Truth.  Did you know that Socrates was a mystic?  Perhaps you do not learn
these things in your conventional books of Western philosophy.

What I would suggest to you Ron, is expand your knowledge a little or you
will never understand Quality.  There is nothing new about how Quality is
presented.  It is done time and again in philosophies.  Perhaps a little
reading outside of your comfort zone would help.

> > dmb said:
> > > That's the meaning of "truth" in the MOQ. "Truth is a static
> > intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality."
> > >
> > > Marsha replied:
> > > Sure, 'truth' is _a_ (one among many) intellectual static pattern of
> > value.  A few definitions can be found in the dictionary.  And?
> > >
> > > dmb says:
> > > What? You think truth is singular? You think there is only one truth?
> > That's absurd. Nobody has ever believed such a silly thing and for
> > pragmatists like Pirsig there are many truths, all of which are
> provisional
> > and invented - as opposed to eternal and discovered.
> >
> > Ron:
> > Well, if we are to take Dynamic Quality as eternal and discovered, that
> > which persists through time and extends beyond the individual experience
> > then we are indeed speaking about a singular truth, that which the monism
> > of MoQ is predicated upon...
> >
>
> Mark:
> Ron, the manner in which you describe DQ is so vague, that it does not lead
> the reader anywhere.  Did you mean discovered?  I am not sure what
> rationality that statement has.  Perhaps you could elaborate on your
> description of DQ such that it makes a convincing argument.  What you
> present above are a bunch of platitudes.  Please spare me your mumbo-jumbo.
> This is a discussion of metaphysics, not a seance.
>
> If you read James, you will see very clear arguments where monism leads to
> determinism.  MoQ is on the side of free will, or pluralism.  For there to
> be free will there must be something for that will to act on.  Monism does
> not provide for free will.  Christianity is dualistic for this very reason.
> Perhaps Ron is confusing Monism with Monotheism.
>
> For each individual, truth is singular, and it has nothing to do with
> static patterns.  It is that starting place through which we interpret
> existence.  The static patterns are simply SQ phrases which, through
> agreement, a group of individuals will adhere to.  They are modes of
> communication and part of social structure.  Truth is truth, not something
> else.  The problem with the West, is that it has objectified truth as being
> some thing, which it is not.  Perhaps we should go back to all the
> discussions on truth and see if we got anywhere.  Perhaps not... Truth
> cannot be objectified as some thing existing separate from us.  To do so
> just brings confusion and war.
>
> Ron:
> I had made an arguement similar to this earlier but what I failed to take
> into account
> was that the term "monism" as Pirsig uses it, refers to a totality of
> experience not
> so much a unified whole. But MoQ is on the side of both freewill AND
> determinism
> a freedom through constraint, if you do care to review the archives on the
> subjectmatter
> It was a good thread and got very heated.
> "Truth" "should" not be objectified, to do so is folly BUT truth as the
> highest form of Quality is what we
> aim for what we strive towards and what we agree apon. "Truth is the
> starting point" as you say.
>

Ah, well, if Pirsig uses monism in an unconventional way then all reason is
lost, isn't it.  Does he use Quality in an uncoventional way too?  What
would be the use of making up new meanings for words?

No, MoQ is on the side of free will.  Everything in the universe has free
will.  Sure we are free to constrain, but why do you call that determinism?
 You speak like we live in a mechanical world.  Perhaps you should read
what James says about the importance of pluralism of free will.
 Determinism just does not make sense.  How are some things determined and
not others?  Do things switch back and forth from being determined to being
free?  If so, what is the mechanism for this.  Do we have some power that
intercedes and changes the determined to the free.  What sort of power is
that?  I am free to throw a ball anywhere, but the ball is determined to go
only one way?  How is it that the free can create the determined?  Do we
have some kind of converting trick to do this?  Perhaps you have not
thought of what a mixed free and determined world means.  Pirsig has.  He
considers this to be a moral universe.  The only way morality can exist is
because of free will.  Otherwise morality would have no meaning whatsoever.
  Perhaps you believe that only man can be moral.  Well this is not what
Pirsig says.  Perhaps you should read Lila.  How can a universe be moral if
determined?

> > >
> > >
> > > dmb said previously:
> > > There is nothing logically contradictory about having an experience
> > while thinking at the same time. The idea here is to get them both
> working
> > TOGETHER. And doing that means putting them in their proper relation,
> > knowing which is which.
> >
> > Ron:
> > Right, as A.N. Whitehead asserted, :"We must construe our knowledge of
> the
> > appearent world as being an individual experience
> > of something which is more than personal. Nature is thus a totality
> > including individual experiences, so that we must reject the
> > distinction between nature as it really is and our experiences of it
> which
> > are purely psychological. Our experiences of the appearent world are
> nature
> > itself." Now there is a lot to chew on here and it has a quite a bit to
> say
> > on the matter of truth as a sort of singularity, the ancients exhaulted
> > truth as that which was the closest to the good, in other words truth is
> > not just one of many static patterns it is the best and if it is
> perennial
> > then there is something about it that persists through change, meaning
> that
> > some truths are better or truer than others, some truths are more than
> > personal they extend past the individual experience.
> >
> >  Mark:
> Let me be clear here.  Experience is something we create.  Experience does
> not float around in the ethers and then hit us.  Our bodies create
> experience.  Secondly, knowledge is also something we create and is part of
> experience.  One cannot separate thoughts from experience since thinking IS
> experience.  Therefore there is a false dichotomy here.  Thirdly,
> everything is nature so it stands to reason that the experiences we create
> are natural.  I do not see much to chew on, it is simply how these words
> are defined.  There is a false dichotomy in the fanatic West made between
> man-made and natural.  This is the objective separation of reality which
> MoQ does its best to alleviate.
>
> Ron:
> Mark, I could run you ragged with explaining "Experience is something
> we create" but I wont, because I think I understand your meaning and I
> absolutly hate when people use it as a rhetorical device to derail the
> conversation
> in the attempt to garner a "win". Because what you re-iterate is what
> Whitehead
> said in the quote I will assume we are on the same page.
>

Ron, I am simply speaking about what the word experience means here.  Don't
give me these oblique definitions of experience.  Experience is something
the body creates in response to a stimuli.  Of course nature is involved,
we are natural.  The separation between what is us, and what lies outside
is cloudy at best.  When we breath in oxygen and it becomes bound
to hemoglobin is it part of us or part of the environment?  We cannot
separate ourselves from the environment, since we are that environment.

Try to run ragged over me, it would be interesting.  I do not think you
have it in you, and you are pretending to be smarter than you are.  I guess
I will never know unless you try.  Ron, you are no match when it comes to
logical and rational presentation.  What you have written so far is a bit
trite.  Trust me.  Try to elevate your writings.  Did you graduate high
school?

>
> Mark:
> Truth is not bridled by the good.  An indian massacre is truth.  If we see
> an indians being slaughtered, it is true for us.  We must be careful to
> distinguish between Truth and the Good.  Otherwise we end up with a
> nonsensical metaphysics.  I am not sure which "ancients" Ron is referring
> to.  This statement of Ron's smells foul.  Perhaps Ron could elaborate on
> what he means by the "ancients", I know of many ancients who did not
> subscribe to this nonsense.
>
> Ron:
> Generally, when we speak of the ancients in refference to the good we
> are speaking about the Greeks in western culture. A read philosopher
> would know this. But what you bring up is a good example of what is meant
> when we refer to truth extending past the individual experience.
> To the ones killing "Indians" they are killing them for the greater good
> from their own perspective but there is a good that transcends that one
> one that says the killing of any human being is wrong. Both are true
> but which truth is better?
>

Whoa, who is this "we"?  Is this a group of you and your friends?  Sorry,
but I do not run in the same circles as you.  I was analyzing your
statement, and now you confide that you have a secret meaning for the term
ancients.  Sorry Ron, that just does not cut it in the realm of
intellectual discourse.  Got any more excuses?  Have you ever met a real
philosopher?

So, now we are on to relative truth?  This completely makes a mess of the
term truth and you know it.  According to you, truth has now become
opinion.  Why do we have two different words, Truth and Opinion?  You are
really messing things up here from a philosophical point of view.  Don't
use the word truth when you mean opinion.  Try to be rational with your
choice of words.  Opinion implies perspective, truth does not.  Try reading
a little Plato and get back to me.  And don't give me some obscure
definition of truth.  I don't have time for those games.


> Mark:
> Perennial refers to esoteric.  Ron is explaining that the subjective (from
> SOM) remains constant.  However, I do not see the logic behind this.  When
> Ron claims that some truths are better than others, I have no idea what he
> is going on about?  Is he speaking of usefulness?  If there is a truth that
> extends beyond the individual experience, then how does he know?  Is Ron
> saying that some truths are not experienced?  What kind of truths are
> those?
>
> Ron:
> Perennial, per annum, refers to that which persists through change, that
> which endures, it's only esoteric if you are too lazy to look it up in a
> dictionary
> therefore I would not expect you to see the logic. As with the rest of your
> post you are sloppy lazy and undisciplined.
>

Ah, so now you are the big genius?  You are now speaking of perennial
flowers?  Why don't you join a botany forum?  We are here to discuss
philosophy, and you know perfectly well what a perennial philosophy is.
 However you are scrambling to seem right.  I do not have that problem
since I do not care if I am right.  I simply want to be clear, something
which seems to be lost on you since you are stuck in a single minded manner
of seeing things.  That is the way the simple minded work.  Stick with one
thing and do not deviate for then it becomes confusing.  Try breaking
through Ron.  That is what MoQ is for.

>
> Put forth some effort would you?
>

Heh, heh.  Well Ron, I am really trying to help you with your critical
thinking.  Needs some work though.  Try to stay consistent with your use of
words.  Drop a little of that rigid Western thought.  Don't provide
meaningless statements like Quality is Reality.  That is just infantile and
has no reasoning associated with it.  Try reading Lila another time, and
this time focus on why he uses the examples he does to explain Quality.
 Forget the specific examples, they are trivial.  What matters is what
Pirsig is trying to say with them.  dmb is lost in the examples and hopes
to find Quality therein.  It is a lost cause.  But you, Ron, you seem to
have more of what it takes.

Cheers,
Mark

>
> ..
> 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
>