[MD] kill all intellectual patterns

[118]

Hi dmb, Marsha

I would propose that there is only one Truth.  The pragmatists have relegated truths to usefulness which convert the basic meaning of truth to something else.  I have presented the self/serving aspect of pragmatists in a previous post.

When dmb requests an appropriate reading of Pirsig, he is pointing towards interpretation.  What often happens with any fundamental presentation of Reality is the high jacking of such interpretation into dogma.  This is the danger I see with dmb's pronouncements.  It would seem that he regards himself as the True interpreter of Pisig's writings.  This same thing happened with Christianity where people had to go to priests in order to understand the "true message".

By its very teachings, MoQ is anti-dogmatic.  The complete subjugation of MoQ's intent into the realm of SQ, which seems to be dmb's intent with his constant use of biblical quotes is not only counterproductive in a discussion forum, but dangerous to MoQ.

Dmb represents the academic arm of MoQ.  His pronouncements should be viewed in terms of such SQ.  what he is lacking is the dynamic aspect of what Pirsig presents.  I am glad that Marsha takes the time to bring balance to the discussion of Quality.

Cheers,

Mark

On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:59 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Marsha replied:
> They aren't really things to be working together.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> What!? Okay now you're just contradicting yourself. Earlier you said, "Hasn't RMP stated that the ideal is to experience the Dynamic point-of-view simultaneously with the static point-of-view?" 
> 
> You want to see the textual evidence on this? We really don't have to guess what Pirsig says on this point. If you'd just stop ignoring the evidence you might have a chance to understand the most basic distinction in the MOQ. If you did stop being so willfully ignorant, my brain would have a heart attack.
> 
> 
> 
> "That's the whole thing: to obtain static AND Dynamic Quality SIMULTANEOUSLY."
> The whole trick is to "create a stable static situation where Dynamic Quality can flourish". 
> "In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is... Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves."
> "Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
> "They don't tell him to shatter those static patterns...   ...you don't free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns, that is called bad Karma chasing its tail. You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is you master them... There at the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns, the dynamic freedom is found."
> 
> THE PROBLEM - "Our current modes of rationality   ...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."  The problem is that "Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other" back in the days of Plato.
> THE SOLUTION - "He felt that the solution started with a new philosophy, or he saw it as even broader than that...a new spiritual rationality...in which... Reason was no longer to be "value free." Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality." 
> "...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."
> "That was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." 
> "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."
> The MOQ "says that Dynamic Quality [is] the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one" and "Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of science itself."
> "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." 
> "It seems as though a society [or a philosophy discussion group] that is intolerant of all forms of degeneracy shuts off its own Dynamic growth and becomes static. But a society that tolerate all forms of degeneracy degenerates. Either direction can be dangerous."
> 
> 
> Marsha said:
> I agree this RMP quote [killing intellect] and I explained why.  And my explanation didn't look anything like the literalist twist that you spin it through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> The trick, obviously, is to read Pirsig so that all his quotes agree with each other. The quotes I've supplied do NOT contradict your favorite quote. It only seems to because you're taking it literally and otherwise failing to understand the meaning of it. If your reading were correct, then it would mean that Pirsig has contradicted himself, made opposite claims such that we have to choose one or the other. 
> 
> What's easier to believe, Marsha? That Pirsig is full of contradictory nonsense or you are failing to understand him. Pirsig's MOQ is just fine. The problem is yours, not Pirsig's or mine or anyone else's. 
> 
> 
>                         
> 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