[MD] theories of truth

[david buchanan]

dmb said to David Harding:
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.


David Harding replied:
As I've said repeatedly - strictly speaking *any* definition or any action or any *thing* is immoral as it is destroying the ultimately undefined nature of reality with fixed metaphysical meanings. Just admit you're being immoral by living and defining words dmb then we can actually talk about where Marsha is making her mistake because this point isn't it..


Ron commented on this dispute:
... 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. 

... 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 argument by hoping they will simply address the quote out of context instead of actually looking at what they are saying in a critical manner and evaluate the consequences of the position they are taking. It is a device employed by someone who obviously thinks their opponent 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 argument.



dmb says:
Yea, that's pretty much what I mean by calling it "self-serving, anti-intellectual bullshit". 

But what really kills me is the oblivious evasion of every argument. David H did not even address the objection but simply repeated the same mistake more emphatically. I said it was asinine and explained why it makes to sense and yet it was as if I said nothing at all. 

And it's such a stupid, simple mistake. Defining conventional and philosophical concepts is not the same as trying to define the ineffable, mystical reality. This misconstrues thought itself as a sin. Man, that is just really shooting yourself in the foot. If one's aim is intellectual paralysis, this is the way to go. 

Plus, if one really believed that discussing philosophy were a sin then one's participation here would make you either a hypocrite, a liar or an idiot.






Sigh.