[MD] Definitions.

[MarshaV]

dmb,

I do not accept your complaints or your self proclaimed intellectual competency.  When I first arrived at the MD, I mistook your snarkiness for intelligence, but that didn't last long.  

On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:05 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not really talking to you anymore. I'm just talking ABOUT you to others. Why? Because you just can't hear what I'm saying anyway, so why should I bother?

That's not really the attitude of a big boy, but I accept you decision.


Marsha

--- 


On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:05 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Marsha said to dmb:
> 
> ... I have pointed out many times, it is not anti-intellectual or a contradiction to understand that patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing constant change.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Yes, I know you keep saying that over and over and over again. But that means nothing. It is contradictory no matter how many you say it. 
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha said:
> 
> If you are so concerned with dictionary definitions, why don't you lookup 'quality' and 'value' and see if it mentions either as being the foundation of reality, or it mentions the "first cut" of either being into static and dynamic aspects.
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> I'm concerned with the definitions of these terms simply because you are misusing these terms. Misuse of the terms is the issue and so standard definitions of those terms becomes important. 
> 
> 
> To say that Quality or value is the foundation of reality is not to define Quality, which is prohibited by the MOQ anyway. It is a metaphysical claim and dictionaries just don't help us with something that. My criticism is much more basic. It's about using words badly. It's about contradictory sentences. It's about using words to mean the opposite of what they mean every other speaking of English. It's not about mysticism. It's just about grammar. 
> 
> 
> Marsha said:
> 
> So right from the get-go, with the Metaphysics of Quality, we are beyond standard dictionary definitions. Philosophy often requires refining terminology.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Your contradictions are quite the opposite of "refining" the terminology. You are confusing and conflating the terminology. It is Quality itself that "is essentially outside definition" but metaphysics isn't like that. In the same breathe, Pirsig also says that there is no metaphysics or any kind of reasoning without definitions. In the same breathe, he says "metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition". He says this in several different ways. "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.) "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.) You're incorrectly and quite irrationally using the undefinable nature of Dynamic Quality to defy the meaning of ordinary, definable concepts. DQ does not grant anyone permission to spew contradictory nonsense. The mystic reality is not definable but that doesn't prohibit us from defining our terms or being clear about what concepts mean. 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how confused you've made all this. No idea. It's a complete train wreck and there is no way it could make sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about. Apparently, you're not even understanding what the topic is. I keep complaining about contradictory phrases and you keep talking about anything but that. But that's okay. I'm not really talking to you anymore. I'm just talking ABOUT you to others. Why? Because you just can't hear what I'm saying anyway, so why should I bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> > > Dave Thomas said to Dave Buchanan, February 20th:
> > > All your ranting to about this issue is what James characterizes as "vicious intellectualism." 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > dmb says:
> > > Just for the record, vicious intellectualism or vicious abstractionism has nothing to do with the tone or tenor of criticism. The idea behind those phrases is a complaint about prioritizing concepts over empirical reality, putting ideas above reality. In the MOQ we see this idea is Pirsig's attack on Plato, particularly the way he made Quality (empirical reality) subordinate to Ideas, the way he subordinated the Good and elevated the True. 
> > > 
> > > As Charlene Seigfried puts it, paraphrasing William James, "abstractionism had become vicious already with Socrates and Plato, who deified conceptualization and denigrated the ever-changing flow of experience, thus forgetting and falsifying the origin of concepts as humanly constructed extracts from the temporal flux." (William James's Radical Reconstruction of Philosophy, 379.)
> > > 
> > > Please notice how this quote also supports my contention that experience is the "ever-changing" part. Vicious intellectualism is vicious because of the way it DENIGRATES "THE EVER-CHANGING FLOW OF EXPERIENCE". James and Seigfried define vicious abstractionism in that quote. It says that Plato "deified conceptualization", which is to say he turned it into a god. The form of the Good not only turned Quality into a fixed and eternal Idea, it more or less evolves into the God of monotheism. This move, they say, "denigrated" the ever-changing flow of experience. That means an unfair criticism or inappropriate disparagement of empirical reality. 
> > > 
> > > See? Vicious intellectualism is a phrase that identifies the problem that James and Pirsig want to solve. In both cases, they want to reverse the mistaken priority by subordinating concepts to the flux of experience, by showing that static concepts are always secondary, always derived from the ever-changing flux of experience (DQ or Pure Experience). 
> > > 
> > > C'mon, be reasonable. Who is more credible on this topic? A professional academic philosopher like Charlene Siegfried or Marsha? The former has published books on the topic while the latter can't quite construct a proper sentence. There is no contest and no reason to doubt that Seigfried knows what she's talking about. 
> > > 
> > > And finally, there is no reason to think that James and Buddhism are mutually exclusive so that the MOQ can only be rightly compared to one or the other. In fact, at least one James scholar says quite explicitly that the Buddha himself was a pragmatist and a radical empiricist, which is what James and Pirsig call themselves. That's WHY it is so wrong-headed for Marsha to use Buddhism against James. Remember when Marsha used the biggest William James fan in the world in her attempts to belittle James? What does THAT tell you about the quality of Marsha's thought? It ain't pretty.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> >