[MD] Misunderstandings are driven by what we value not by the logic we use.

[david buchanan]

 dmb said:
...As you've just construed it, any philosophical discussion is degenerate and it's always wrong to have any kind of intellectual conversation. This is the mistake I'm trying to correct... 


djh replied:
Sorry dmb, it seems you're misunderstanding me.  I don't think that it is always wrong to have any kind of intellectual conversation'. [...]  I do think it's important to recognise that before you commence a philosophical discussion that you recognise that it is degenerate in its own way as Pirsig does at the start of Lila..  [...]  ...it is important to remember that sq is unavoidable and yet destroys DQ no matter what you want to try. 


dmb says:
Dude, please look at your flip-flopping self. You can't deny the view and then assert it a few moments later. It's NOT always wrong AND it's important to recognize the degeneracy of philosophical discussion before you even start?! You're talking out of both sides, David. 

And what about the most important distinction I made? You didn't even mention it! Again - please hear this idea: It is degenerate to define the ineffable mystic reality (DQ) because that a case of trying to squeeze reality itself into static intellectual patterns. But this problem, this violation, does NOT apply to philosophical terms. They are just static intellectual patterns, not the mystic reality. They ARE supposed to be definable and, except for "DQ" of course, it is NOT degenerate to define Pirsig's philosophic terms. 

Metaphysics isn't easy to define but it has gone out of style because it is supposed to deal with "the fundamental nature of being and the world. Pirsig's "metaphysics" avoids any definition of exactly that: the fundamental nature of the world is, for a mystic, outside of language, outside of concepts and is known directly, prior to words and concepts.

But I am just talking about concepts. I'm just talking about the meaning of the words in Pirsig's books. Don't you see the difference? Marsha doesn't. 

And just think about it for a minute. How does it make sense to say that it's degenerate to define words and concepts? That's just asinine. It's ridiculous, especially in this context. The truth is, I think, that a place like this COULD be where real living philosophy happens. Imagine a group of people seriously engaged in thinking together.  I've seen this happen in book discussion groups but only when people are fairly serious about the material. Anti-intellectualism is certainly poisonous to any such hopes for this place. 


djh continued:

...So really none of what you wrote here addresses my overall point..  Could I be right about the other stuff I wrote in light of this? Feel free to go back and look over the previous post if you like.. Or not :-)




dmb says:
You know, everything would be smooth and groovy if only you'd just consider my values. Don't you realize that I have values as a unique person, therefore my views should not be held to any kind of intellectual standards. I feel strongly about this, see, because I was raised in the suburbs (a very exotic culture that you couldn't possibly understand). 

But seriously, David. I thought your "overall point" was dead and buried long ago. Sorry, I just think you're making no sense and quite vaguely too. Maybe you'd like to demonstrate this method of "considering values". Show us how one looks at Marsha's values apart from the considerations of intellectual coherence. Use Marsha's favorite salad of words for an example, please. You know, the one she repeats so often and in which she describes static patterns as "ever-changing".  For the sake of argument, I'll pretend that the intellectual values (or lack thereof) don't merit consideration while you do what you're telling me to do. Show me what it is. I honestly can't imagine how that would actually work.

Go for it. I'll watch very carefully, I swear on a stack of dictionaries.