[MD] philosophology

[david buchanan]

Ian said to Dan:
... I just don't see anyone (other than dmb ironically ;-) "arguing in favor of subjects experiencing objective reality".


Dan replied:
What? Really? Then I take it you haven't been reading any of the discussions between David Harding and me, or between David Morey and me. They are both pretty adamant about people experiencing static quality, which if you look at it logically, breaks down to an independent reality existing apart from the individual, or to a subject experiencing objective reality. In doing so, they are elevating static quality as the central reality in the MOQ. David Harding even admits to doing so.    And if you have been reading dmb's posts in the manner you suggest, then we must be reading things differently. I have never in all the years here read him in that way.


dmb says:
Thanks Dan, but I did make that mistake too. It takes one to know one, right? And I was once where they are now. It was Paul Turner who opened my eyes, in fact, and I remember thanking him for it in Liverpool while he and I were talking to Pirsig. Pirsig said, basically, "yep, I noticed that". I think Paul has the chops to go professional if he wants to. It took a while to convince me and another guy named Roger patiently tried over and over to show me that I was still thinking in SOM terms. He was really good at it and he was as patient as a saint but, sadly, it never clicked in my mind until after he left the forum. Oh boy, would we have a conversation now. I'd begin by thanking him and apologizing for my thickness. My point? I know what it's like to be Krimel or the other Davids (Harding and Morey). Been there, done that. Maybe someday they'll thank you, Dan. Who knows? Anything is possible. 


Ian said:
I honestly still believe the whole long-running argument is simply a SOMist language communication problem - that we ALL share since Aristotle - particularly if we take the "critical" stance with those we are arguing "against". Being more charitable I take a more "fluid integrative" view of those I am debating "with". Critique against - is inherently SOMist. 

Dan replied:
What you seem to be saying is that if someone is on a low quality journey we who know better shouldn't criticize them or attempt to point the way to higher quality ideas. By being 'charitable' we basically don't care whether or not these folk gain any knowledge about the MOQ. Is that right? I will for the moment assume there are those here with a greater grasp of the MOQ than others. Perhaps that isn't charitable but life is like that. There are experts in certain fields and then there are laypeople who may possess adequate knowledge and yet they haven't acquired the ability of an expert who has spent tens of thousands of hours honing their skills. Are you saying the experts here should just shut up and take a more fluid integrative approach?



dmb says:
Well, I look at Mr. Charitable's short paragraph and wonder if he strained his arm patting himself on the back. His main point seems to be, "Ian is a great guy," as opposed to those stingy Aristotelean SOMists who argue or criticize. "Critique against - is inherently SOMist," he says (self-servingly). How or why argument and criticism are "inherently SOMist" is never explained or justified in any way. It's totally obvious, I think, that Ian is just trying to make his inability to deal with arguments and criticism into some kind of virtue.

But the moment you stop to think about it, hopefully, you can see what a load of bullshit it is. Who, in their right mind, thinks it wrong or inappropriate to argue, debate or critique ideas in a philosophical discussion group? What in the world could be MORE appropriate, given the context, given the point and purpose of such discussions? When you stop to think about it, Ian's assertion is outrageous, totally implausible, face-saving, evasive bullshit. It's despicable and openly contemptuous of intellectual. It makes me feel sick. Seriously. I have a negative physical reaction to this kind of anti-intellectual drivel. I think Pirsig is quite right to insist that truth, science, and intellect are NOT amoral. I mean, it's not just stupidity but also a kind of sleaziness that makes me want to take a shower. Yuk! I use the word "drivel" (like drool or slobber) for a real reason, you know? It's like this disgusting stuff is uncontrollably streaming out of his or her mouth. 

It takes a lot of restraint and discipline to be relatively civil in criticizing this sort of thing. The unspoken voice of my inner demons makes the Furies look like fairies. You don't want to know what I really think of these people personally and it's not really not relevant anyway. But the arguments, debates, critiques - words in a row - that's all we get in a email-based discussion group. That's all that there can be. To rule that out is just stupid beyond belief. Think about it. That is a totally idiotic idea, maybe even the stupidest objection I ever heard.