[MD] theories of truth

[X Acto]

Subject: Re: [MD] theories of truth


"Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get."


David Harding said to dmb:

The creation of a metaphysics *is* an immoral act. Don't you agree? It's written right there by Pirsig in the quote Marsha provided.


dmb says:
Yes, I agree with Pirsig. The problem is not the quote but with the uncomprehending way that Marsha uses the quote. And in this case, as usual, she spinelessly used it to evade the criticism. And this criticism has everything to do with the way she confuses and distorts the distinction between concepts and reality, between static patterns and the mystic reality. That's what the quote is all about. Properly understanding that distinction is necessary to properly understand this quote. 

WHY is it immoral to create a metaphysics? Because it is a case of intellect, "a lower form of evolution, ..trying to devour a higher mystic one". This is another way of saying that Quality cannot be defined, that we ought not try to squeeze reality into words and ideas. But Marsha misconstrues this to mean that it's immoral to define words and ideas, to mean that any kind of philosophical discussion is some sort of moral violation.

Come on, David. That's just asinine.

[Ron adds]
The typical response to the use of this particular snippet is simply to read the remainder of the paragraph in its context
and that is that no one exists who does not corrupt mystic reality. To live, to think, to "be" is to pollute mystical experience
with metaphysical meaning. Which is also written right there in the full text in its context.
One then has to ask Marsha and Dave H. if they side with the christians in this matter in which we are all born with
the original sin of knowing good. At least that is what they seem to be saying when they use that quote out of context as
support to the explanation of the immorality of intellectual quality. They use it in such a way as to seek to undercut quality because
quality that is unintelligible is quality that does not exist. 

Notice how the rheorical stratagy has now shifted to include "change" as a static concept to bolster the arguement?

So..

In an attempt to be more moral than intellectual quality they assert the superiority of the value-less.

The consequence is it renders the good as an illusion, Quality is hypothetical and lacks any inherent reality.

This appears to run contrary to Pirsigs explanations in most every way.

So I suspect it is more of a rhetorical move {a very poor one} aimed at besting someone in an arguement
by hoping they will simply address the quote out of context instead of actually looking at what they are 
saying in a criticle manner and evaluate the consequences of the position they are taking.
It is a device employed by someone who obviously thinks their opponant is not very bright and not very
well read on the subject matter because it is an obviously dishonest and desperate tactic to employ just to 
win an arguement. 

..