[MD] Sympathy for the Devil

[MarshaV]

Poor dmb, you seem to be one of those characters that cannot present an intellectual idea unless pushing against an imaginary "fiercest rival" with imaginary misrepresentations.  Will you may consider me your fiercest rival, but it is difficult for me to consider you anything but insignificant.  


Marsha 



On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:14 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Arlo said to Ian:
> ...Language, of course, both limits and enables what we consider the "human experience". We don't seem to have a problem suggesting that inorganic patterns "limit" living real life, do we? Is 'gravity' a prison? Or, is it because of gravity we are both constricted AND enabled to 'live' as we do? And we don't seem to have a problem suggesting that biological patterns "limit" living real life, do we? Certainly we recognize that (social-intellectual methods for alleviating aside) biological impairment absolutely impacts the spectrum of experience an individual will encounter. And we don't have a problem suggesting that social patterns "limit" living real life, do we? Certainly there are qualitative "limits" to the life experienced between affluent New England and the slums outside Kinshasa? So why we start to balk at "limits" imposed by intellectual patterns? Aren't they, like all the other levels, part of "living real life" in the first place? I mean, one of the points of Pirsi
> g's MOQ is that the menu matters, right? Its not just some arbitrary, irrelevant abstract thing we do to pass time when we are not "living real life", but, like all patterns across every level, is part of the lived real life in a meaningful, impacting, and concrete way.
> 
> dmb says:
> Yes, Arlo, I think you've put your finger on my central complaint. As I keep trying to explain, in a nutshell, the problem is an anti-intellectual reading of the MOQ. And basically, this misunderstanding is the result of misapplying Pirsig's critique of subject-object metaphysics to the MOQ itself, particularly intellectual static patterns. Instead of using Pirsig's critique of SOM to explain the MOQ's self or to support the MOQ claims about the intellectual level, folks like Marsha constantly use it against the MOQ itself. She uses it to denigrate intellectual static patterns, to undermine the MOQ's pragmatic theory of truth, and even to disparage philosophical discussions in general.
> Ian's (clipped, cryptic and grammatically incorrect) comments, for example, seems to suggest that intellectual quality and metaphysical discussions are somehow the enemy of life, are somehow opposed to "living real life". It makes a certain amount of sense to complain about SOM in terms like that, but to say that about the MOQ or to say that about the MOQ's intellectual level is just a misapplication of Pirsig's critique. As I've been saying for several years (!) now, this is a matter of confusing the cancer with the cure. Why treat the MOQ's intellectual values as if they were the cancerous enemy of life? They not only limit and enable us generally, they are indispensable in any effort to be clear and precise about the meaning of the MOQ. This bogus anti-intellectualism is like two wrenches in the gears because it undermines the structure of the MOQ and it undermines the central point and purpose of this forum. For example,...
> 
> Earlier in this thread, Ian said, "I reject limiting MD to the static view. Surely our topic (on MD) is a living philosophy - not 'what Pirsig wrote'."
> 
> This is the kind of incoherent, anti-intellectual nonsense that drives me crazy. There are two glaring errors, both of which expose a very basic misunderstanding. Firstly, as long as you're involved in a philosophical discussion there is just no way to escape static patterns and you wouldn't want to even if you could. There is just no way to get the actual living experience into an e-mail or into a concept. We can talk about DQ but words and concepts are always static and so one thing you'll never, ever get from an e-mail is DQ itself. 
> Secondly, while it's true that Pirsig wants the MOQ and philosophy in general to make an actual difference in life, our topic, surely, is the MOQ and that is nothing more nor less than "what Pirsig wrote". If we want to be clear and accurate about the meaning of the MOQ, what could be more appropriate or relevant than "what Pirsig wrote". If a person wants to make a case about the meaning of the MOQ, "what Pirsig wrote" is the best evidence in the world. The point and purpose of this forum is to talk about "what Pirsig wrote". It makes no sense at all to complain about this use of evidence and yet folks like Ian, apparently, cannot distinguish the difference between hero worship and the proper use of textual evidence. This conflates social authority with intellectual values. It conflates claims about the meaning of Pirsig's work with claims about the ultimate truth of the world, or something, as if being clear about the MOQ is the same as believing everything Pirsig says just
>  because it's Pirsig saying it. Sadly, this evidence denouncing nonsense is almost always employed by those who find themselves contradicted by the evidence. I strongly suspect that this tactic is just a face-saving, ego-driven move. If you watch this carefully, you'll notice that there's usually a whiff of self-aggrandizment in it, as if they were too important, too creative, or too deep and mystical to be bothered with all the stupid static stuff like logic, definitions and textual evidence. I have nothing but rolling eyes and raspberries for that kind of evasive, irresponsible nonsense.
> 
> Earlier in this thread, for example, I selected and posted a small batch of relevant Pirsig quotes. The response to this textual evidence? Nothing. Zip, zero, nada, unless you count Marsha's inexplicable reply; which was "go for it!" or something like that. Huh? Maybe those quotes are what prompted Ian to be so dismissive about "what Pirsig says". It seems pretty clear to me that these quotes also support what you've been saying, Arlo, about static patterns enabling AND limiting us at the same time. A house is defined by its walls and we are confined by those limits but it's exactly those limits that create a dwelling space and give us shelter. Even further, this is stuff we're made of. These static patterns are an indispensable feature of the MOQ's conception of the self. Pirsig is quite explicit about the need for BOTH static quality and Dynamic Quality.  
> 
> "Without Dynamic Quality the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed," he says. "All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality."
> 
> "If you compare the levels of static patterns that compose a human being to the ecology of a forest, and if you see the different patterns sometimes in competition with each other, sometimes in symbiotic support of each other, but always in a kind of tension that will shift one way or the other, depending on evolving circumstances, then you can also see that evolution doesn't take place only within societies, it takes place within individuals too. It's possible to see Lila as something much greater than a customary sociological or anthropological description would have her be. Lila then becomes a complex ecology of patterns moving toward Dynamic Quality. Lila individually, herself, is in an evolutionary battle against the static patterns of her own life."
> 
> We can only speculate about where the (fictional) title character ultimately end up. There are several directions and some of them are definitely better than others. Her particular situation is such that becoming a church lady would be a step us the evolutionary ladder. Her physical beauty and power is fading fast, socially she's pretty far down the scale, and intellectually she's nowhere. But even if you or I are in a very different situation her battle is still like everybody's battle insofar as each of us is "a complex ecology of patterns moving toward Dynamic Quality" and everyone "is in an evolutionary battle against the static patterns" of their own life. And, of course, intellectual values are at the top of the static hierarchy because they are the most evolved. And this is the part that our resident anti-intellectuals really need to understand. This evolutionary battle is a moral battle and the MOQ's moral compass says that intellectual values SHOULD be at the top of 
> all static patterns in this evolutionary morality, that intellect should be subordinated to nothing except DQ. In the MOQ, intellect is supposed to be the servant of life, is supposed to be the most dynamic, most evolved level of values. The haters are not just wrong but also (unwittingly, I suppose) advocating a very dubious morality wherein the highest static values are constantly being undermined. Seems pretty outrageous to me and has for a long, long time. I guess I'm pretty sick of it by now. 
> 
> Thanks for offering some relief from this avalanche of bullshit, Arlo. I believe you need no lessons from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		 	   		  
> 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


 
___