[MD] Drivel v MOQ

[118]

Hi dmb,
The quote you use below was mine, so I feel that I should respond.

It would seem that you do not know what I am talking about, since you
used an analogy (of fuel) which has nothing to do with what I am
presenting.  It would seem that you may also believe that "thinking
about one's thinking" is also an endless trap which has no way out.
These are the standard paradoxes that the intellect will trap oneself
in, and getting out of them requires a bit of critical thinking or not
falling for those traps to begin with.

I do not even know where to start in terms of presenting to you what I
mean.  I will start with a question which I hope you would do me the
favor of answering rather than behaving like some snipe-shooter who is
trying to pick people off who do not succumb to the party line.

The question is this:  Why do you think that Pirsig differentiates
between DQ and sq?  Please try to answer this without any quotes, but
with creative thoughts of your own.  My preliminary answer would be
that words represent sq and are therefore not the sum total of our
experience.  Words can be so binding that we forget that DQ exists.
There is a vast realm between words, that is much more real than
words.  If you want, we can discuss this but my experience has been
that you seem to take shots at me and not following up with anything
of substance.

The realm of philosophers is one where the intellect completely
dissociates from intuitive reality.  That realm is one of static
existence, where words and concepts are manipulated in manners with
"sound good", but really have little basis.  The points that you often
make about MoQ are exactly what Pirsig was trying to caution against.
It was for good reason that Pirsig considered the writing of a
metaphysics as "degenerate".  However, in this forum there seems to be
a tendency to take his writing as some Truth, which misses the whole
point of what Pirsig is trying to present.  Many trap themselves in
words and concepts and then believe that such things ARE reality, and
this is exactly why Pirsig had reservations about when setting forth
to writing a metaphysics to begin with.  Don't prove his fears to have
been well founded.

You seem fairly intelligent, so my good natured advice to you would be
to begin thinking for yourself.  This is a great opportunity for you
to leave the coattails that you are currently under and start out on
your own journey.  It would be great if you could present something
that is not some philosophology, or some echo of what Pirsig or James
present.  This requires critical thinking and imagination.  You could
create your own path that could surpass both James and Pirsig if you
tried.  You could open a brand new field of "spiritual rationality"!
This forum could be a good first place for you to test new ideas since
it is not in the academic field.  The responses you would get from
many of us may be somewhat naive in the field of philosophy, but they
would be well intentioned and perhaps you could learn something from
them.  You do not know everything, as neither do the rest of us.  This
is an opportunity to both listen and present, the former always being
the hardest to learn.

Instead of being critical of what others post without presenting a
good argument to the contrary, try posting some NEW concepts on your
own.  If you make sense, people will follow you.  We do not bite, we
are just avatars on a screen, and any intellectual criticism is for
your own good.  Believe me, the academic world is not very kind.
Arrogance and pride are your worst enemy right now, and could prevent
you from ever getting started on your journey.  It is OK to make
mistakes if one learns from them.  Believe me, the future is bright,
you just need to start.  I believe you have important things to
contribute to the realm of metaphysics; things that are uniquely
yours.

If you are just going to post yet another critical statement without
substance instead of answering my question, then don't bother, it will
be a waste of your time.

All the best,
Mark

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Either Marsha or Mark said:
> Yes, my posts are meant for those who wish for a way out of the static world of thought. The idea is to free oneself from words.
>
> dmb says:
> This is another good example. First you have the delusional grandiosity wherein the poster claims to transcend the normal limits of thoughts and words and then you have the logical incoherence of the claim. Reading or writing to free yourself from words is like driving your car around to free yourself from fuel consumption. It is a humorously conspicuous performative contradiction. In other words, it's so stupid that it's funny.
> 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