[MD] A realist MOQ

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

> dmb,
>
> (1) DavidM is warning against the rejection of realism BECAUSE you accused
> him by name (in a thread not actually involving him) of "arguing in favor
> of subjects experiencing objective reality". Simply clarifying that it's
> the primacy of subjects and objects we're (ALL) rejecting - NOT reality.
> We're (ALL) arguing for a MoQish REALITY - and thereby rejecting the
> dangers of a post-modern, solipsistic, subjective idealism. (Cue David H on
> consensus and agreement).
>

Dan:
Harding and Morey are in the same boat. They both seem convinced of
pre-existing objects that we all experience. And... who is this "ALL" that
you are speaking of? So far as I can see there are but a handful of people
here who even understand what the primacy of subjects and objects is all
about. Otherwise most of these discussions would not be taking place.


>
> (2) Those annotations are fine for what there were (in context as responses
> to specific statements) but they are not comprehensively definitive in
> their own right.
> Annotation 4 hedges its bets with the pragmatic "whenever practical"
> qualifier.
> Annotation 67 involves a great deal of short-hand and even admits it
> contributes to the confusion.
> Annotation 97 doesn't seem relevant to the current debate - but includes a
> topic we should return to - namely "social evaluation".
>

Dan:
Gee, thanks for being so respectful, Ian. As far as I can see, these
annotations address the very issues that Harding and Morey have been on
about lately... namely that there is a pre-existing reality independent and
apart from human comprehension, and that this pre-existing reality is
primary to experience.

Look... I've been round and round with both Davids on this. Their
understanding of the MOQ is simply not there. And I don't mean that in any
disrespectful way... if someone doesn't understand they do not understand.
There is no harm in that. But my pretending they do understand does no one
any service.

It is my belief that if a person carefully reads both ZMM and Lila and
avails themselves of Dr. McWatt's work as well as Lila's Child and other
post-Lila writings by Robert Pirsig, they will begin to see what this MOQ
is all about. I don't know what the Davids have read... Harding got very
defensive when I suggested he re-read Lila. But I was only attempting to
help guide him to a greater understanding.

If you read some of his rants against me: such as I refuse to consider
anything but Dynamic Quality when it is obvious to anyone who knows
anything about the MOQ that static quality is ALL we can ever talk about,
or how I do not understand him when I do... he doesn't seem to realize
understanding someone and agreeing with them doesn't go hand in hand.

I feel I have been more than patient with both Harding and Morey. And for
the record, I know I put a lot of work into Lila's Child and Robert Pirsig
was good enough to take his time in providing the annotations. Your
dismissal of it irks me a bit, especially after you accuse me and others
here of being disrespectful. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Dan

http://www.danglover.com