[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[David Morey]

Hi Marsha

I agree that science and MOQ are hard to unite but if you take the SOM out of science as Roy Bhaskar has, and the non-realism and anthropocentrism out of Dan and DMBs MOQ it can be done I suggest. To be clear overall I think Pirsig does not fall into the errors that others have. If he has then I part company with Pirsig over non-realism and anthropocentrism. But for me the jury is out, Dan and DMB think Pirsig agrees with them, fair enough at least I am open about whether he does or not. Interested to know where others stand on this.

MOQ non-realist and anthropocentric, for or against?

David M

MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
>Hi David,
>
>Of course there are problems with a request for such a serious reconciliation, and it is certainly way beyond my scientific understanding to attempt such an in-depth discourse, but I might ask:  How easily was the Copernican system _reconciled_ with the old Ptolemaic (earth-centered) model?   
>
>Though I am not being much help, your question is important and I appreciate your frustration.
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>On May 1, 2013, at 7:04 AM, David Morey <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Arlo
>> 
>> Nonsense, you have no intellectual integrity, if you did you would address my points you clearly have no ability to do so, if you were able to you would not raise this fantasy SOM windmill, you would respond by saying how you see the problem I am raising, and you would then explain how the MOQ can address my issue by explaining it as follows... You guys cannot do this, you are using the old trick of claiming that if you cover your ears, eyes and mouths with special MOQ glasses you can't see the problem or the issue. Nothing I can say to that, I do not claim that my way is the only way to interpret the MOQ, but sure see a whole heap of problems with an MOQ turned into as an anthropocentric non-realist idealism. So how many people here agree with Dan,Arlo and DMB, and how many can see the problems I am raising. This argument can be read in the book After Finitude in full, as it is the same one Speculative Realism raises against all corelationism, and forcing it down the plug 
> ho
>> le of history, I'd hate to see the same thing happen to MOQ, you guys are falling into a hole that many others have shown, check out After Finitude if you want to come up with a less floored position and then come back to me. If you find the real messiah let me know, I'm just your very naughty nonsense spotting friend trying to help you raise your game. But you are not interested it seems. Shame on you!
>> 
>> All the best.
>> David M
>> 
>> ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> [David]
>>> Yes you keep going back to things that have nothing to do with what I am saying, has a robot hacked your account?
>>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> Dan wondered if you're suffering some sort of meltdown. It seems that way to me too. What you're doing is trying to skirt the valid (and precise) criticisms about your ideas, why they evidence a misunderstanding of Pirsig (by multiple people), and why they are inherently a SOM perspective ("SOM" used in the correct way, by the way), by throwing sand in the bull's eyes (to you the ZMM analogy). After weeks of being shown exactly where you SOM misunderstandings are, you accuse everyone else of being "SOM" (I call this the Great Pee Wee Maneuver, its used quite a bit out of desperation).
>>> 
>>> I can't say I'm surprised, Pirsig's ideas are rather revolutionary and the single biggest mistake I've seen over the years is people trying to dress up their SOM views with MOQ clothing. And while you seemed absolutely intent before about overlaying an SOM (i.e., "patterns have to exist in experience before you then go on to conceptualise them") perspective with Pirsig's terminology, it seems that also has a psychological rabidness to it.
>>> 
>>> Its clear you've hit a "messiah point", where continuing to point out even your most basic misunderstanding will only reinforce your idea that you alone understand Pirsig and everyone else is "SOM" (psychological mirroring). So there is little point in talking, like Dan said.
>>> 
>>> Good luck.
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 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
>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