[MD] The value of static patterns.

[MarshaV]

On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:43 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> "He wondered what it was about himself that she couldn't see when he was getting angry. Just now at the cafe she'd gone on for fifteen minutes about what great people they were and she never saw what was coming. She missed the whole point of everything. She's after Quality, like everybody else, but she defines it entirely in biological terms. She doesn't see intellectual quality at all. It's outside her range. She doesn't even see social quality." (Lila 214)
> 
> "Lila's religion of one doesn't have a chance." (Lila 372)
> 
> "Lila's problem wasn't that she was suffering from a lack of Dynamic freedom. It's hard to see how she could possibly have any more freedom. What she needed now were stable patterns to ENCASE that freedom. She needed some way of being re-integrated into the rituals of everyday living. ..These defensive pattens were not only as bad as the patterns she was running from, they were worse!  ..RTA. That's what was missing from her life. Ritual." (Lila 386)
> 
> 
> 
> Andre said Marsha:
> So there are four arguments here that you (continually) use and which are CONTRARY to Pirsig's MOQ:1) the intellectual level = SOM2) DQ=sq3) sq is 'everchanging...'4) The MOQ=Experience.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> If a person wanted to misconstrue and distort the MOQ's basic structure, any one of those four equations would more than enough to get the job done. But if we add all four of them to Marsha's picture of the titular character, I think it's completely obvious that she understands nothing about the MOQ. She identifies with a character who sees the value of nothing except booze, sex and chocolate. Philosophy isn't for everybody, you know? If "she doesn't see intellectual quality at all" and it's so far "outside her range" that "she doesn't even see social quality", then obviously she has no business in a place like this. It's like trying to play chess with a chimp. It's just not going to happen no matter how many bananas you bring.
> 
>            


Annotation 140. 
To say that a comment is “stupid” is to imply that the person who makes it is stupid. This is the ad hominem argument: meaning, “to the person.” Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and you argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does this tell us about the condition of the sun? That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil. The MOQ divides the hominem, or “individual,” into four parts: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, the ad hominem argument can be defined more clearly: it is an attempt to destroy the intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social status. In other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a higher form. That is evil...

     (LILA's Child)