[MD] theories of truth

[david buchanan]

dmb said to David Harding:
Are we having a conversation or are you just going to repeat the same nonsense over and over again? Address the damn argument or shut up.. the definition of a philosophical concept or term is not degenerate because philosophical concepts and terms are not the mystic reality. The concepts, the terms and the definition are all static intellectual pattens. In fact, this whole forum can only ever be static and intellectual. Anyone who thinks we are dealing here with the mystic reality itself is deeply, deeply confused.. Deal with it or leave me alone. ....


Harding responds:
I'm trying to answer this as directly as possible dmb but you seem to keep missing my point. ...Pirsig clearly explains that a metaphysics - which is nothing but a bunch of definitions of philosophical concepts - is immoral and degenerate *because* it is an attempt of intellect trying to devour a higher mystic form of evolution (DQ).  ...DQ isn't some mystical thing far away - it's right here and we're both defining it and destroying it right now with our intellectual discussion. Does that mean we should stop our intellectual discussion?  Or pretend - like Marsha - that static patterns are 'ever-changing'? Of course not.  We cannot help but destroy the ultimately undefined nature of reality but because Good is a noun it's best if we be as good as we can. Don't you agree with that?


dmb says:
Oh. My. God.

This is about the fifth time, David. Once again you have ignored the argument and simply repeated the same notion again. Why are you not addressing the argument? Look, David, Pirsig's sense of "degeneracy" only makes sense within an evolutionary hierarchy of values. My argument hinges on that hierarchy, on the moral codes of the MOQ and THAT is what you are repeatedly failing to answer, address or even acknowledge. Look at what Pirsig is saying about science in relation to DQ and in relation to the static levels below intellect. This is what degeneracy means in the MOQ....


in LILA Pirsig wrote: 

"The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and social patterns. But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality - the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one-is another matter altogether. Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic Quality as it is for church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself." 

In each case, degeneracy or immorality consists in allowing the lower level to trump or subordinate a higher level.  If you don't use this hierarchy properly then all sorts of weird nonsense will result. The prohibitions against marital infidelity would be misconstrued to mean that any sexual activity is a betrayal even if you're not married. The prohibition against "selling out" would be misconstrued to mean that it's immoral to have a job or earn money in any way. And that's what you're doing to the intellect. The prohibition against trying to define the mystic reality is misconstrued to mean that it's always wrong to skillfully manipulate abstract concepts or define any words. 


As far as I can tell, NOBODY here is trying to define the mystic reality. Pirsig flirts with this and he knows it's absurd to even have a metaphysics of Quality but he only defines it as undefinable, only describes it in terms of what it is not. 


And, even IF you were right it still would be a very useless argument because the only one who doesn't commit this terrible sin of trying to think clearly is a person who hasn't been born yet. So what is the point of pressing this idea against one person and not the other? If everyone is unavoidably guilty of this, then the criticism applies to everyone on the planet and so it is quite pointless and useless. It distinguishes nothing from anything. If you're right, then the point is relevant to absolutely nothing and it will not settle any dispute. A thing that can't be distinguished from anything else has no value and does not exist. 

Yes, there is such a thing as degenerate sex but not all sex is degenerate. Without it, the species would go extinct. Yes, there is such a thing as degenerate money-making and power-grabbing but not all social values are degenerate. Without them, we'd still be living in caves and grunting at each. Yes, there is such a thing as degenerate intellect but without intellectual values we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights, Democracy, science, philosophy. And all these static values are supposed to serve the ongoing process of life, supposed to serve the on-going course of evolution.

Anti-intellectualism is degenerate because it thwarts the most highly evolved, most moral level of static patterns, How in the world does any figure that hating on the intellect will serve life? 


Socrates was right about one thing, at least. For a human being, the unexamined life is not worth living. The unexamined life is the life of a pig or a dog or a whore. It's evil. Why don't you get that? How can you make these anti-intellectual comments without feeling the need to take a shower? Don't you feel the sleaze of it?