[MD] theories of truth

[david buchanan]

dmb said to djh:
... Intellectual discussion "is always ultimately degenerate" but "it's not always wrong"? So sometimes degeneracy is good? This claim is so obviously wrong and foolish that it doesn't even deserve to be disputed. 



djh responds:


"So sometimes degeneracy is good? " you ask.  Yes, sometimes degeneracy is good.  That's exactly right! 


dmb says:

Your claim is contradictory nonsense. According to Pirsig and the English language, degeneracy is not good. Your claim is just plain stupid because there is no such thing as good degeneracy. That's WHY your claim is absurd. 


And this quote explains why the first part of the claim is wrong (intellectual discussion is always degenerate). 

"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about does. ...The static language of the Metaphysics of Quality will never capture the Dynamic reality of the world but some fingers point better than others and as the world changes, old pointers and road maps tend to lose their value."


The degeneracy in question depends on understanding the proper relationship between thought and reality. You're not getting this very simple point. Your whole case is predicated on a refusal to acknowledge the distinction between reality and Pirsig's books. 


Let me say that again: YOUR CASE DEPENDS ON A REFUSAL TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND PIRSIG"S WRITTEN WORKS.



Which, of course raises some very important questions. Are you kidding? Are you blind? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? 

But seriously. Based on the quote above, some points should be quite clear. You are pretending that it does not  matter WHAT you are defining. But the question of degeneracy totally hinges on WHAT you are defining. And the WHATS in question here are "concepts" and "reality". 


1. The MOQ is static and intellectual but reality is dynamic and undefinable.

2. The MOQ should be separated from the mystic reality that it talks about.

3. The MOQ's static language will never capture the mystic reality.

4. DQ cannot be defined and any definition of DQ is degenerate.

5.  This is the distinction that determines whether or not definitions are degenerate. 

6. It is NOT degenerate to define the terms and concepts of the MOQ because the MOQ is already static intellectual. 



djh responded to a variation on this point:
...  Dynamic Quality - the 'food' is constantly defined by everyone. Simply BELIEVING that 'Thought cannot bring you closer to reality' does not suddenly change the fact that when you think you are removed from reality.   The removal happens regardless of what you believe.  This removal - this discussion - is ultimately mystic degeneracy regardless of the static shine you may want to put on it.


dmb says:
This quote is talking about the Dynamic lived reality and the daily role that concepts play in our lived experience. But this dispute is about what we can and cannot define in a philosophy discussion on the internet. You CAN'T have lived experience in this forum. Period. Never, ever gonna happen. All we have are books and keyboards, dude. 

And I'm not talking about removing anything from reality, whatever THAT is supposed to mean. I'm saying that the issue of degeneracy depends on WHAT you are defining. Defining the mystic reality is degenerate. Defining words and concepts is not. We are here to talk about the MOQ and that is not degenerate. In fact, compared to the way most people in this world will spend their day, it's probably the least degenerate thing you can do. 


djh said:

This is a quote of yours [dmb's] verbatim: "I'm not even talking about the mystic reality. I'm talking about the MOQ, which "is static and should be separated from the DQ it talks about." " Clearly this is a contradiction of yours here.  You *are* talking about the mystic reality.  According to the quote you provided in the next sentence - the MOQ *talks about* DQ.


dmb says:
Oh, David that's just stupid. Talking about the MOQ is the same as talking the mystic reality because the MOQ talks about it? You're just undoing or denying the separation that Pirsig calls for in that quote. You are dismissing the most relevant piece of textual evidence with a rather absurd and convoluted reversal of the main point! You weasel!


Look, this evidence further supports my simple contention that the MOQ is static and intellectual and therefore definable. 


"But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality."

The definitions in the MOQ have already emerged. They're already static. It doesn't lower them to treat them as definable because they are already defined! They were written and published years ago, obviously.


And no! The whole MOQ is NOT "a description of DQ". As Pirsig says, DQ is the focal point around which the concepts of the MOQ are arranged and he never defines DQ itself. And when he does talk about it, he mostly talks about what it is NOT. This is not some arbitrary rule about what is and is not sacred, you know? This prohibition is not some commandment from the prophet. You're supposed to UNDERSTAND WHY it is degenerate. It's very much part of understanding Pirsig's work in general. On that score, David, you are not making any sense. 

Pirsig's assertions about the degeneracy are predicated on a hierarchical distinction between concepts and reality. You are employing this distinction and denying at the same time. Clearly, you don't understand it. 


I think it's really very sad that you've come to this conclusion, that a mystic is supposed to "avoid intellectual quality". That's just anti-intellectualism and shows that Pirsig's efforts to explain the art of rationality are just lost on you. You read ZAMM and concluded that the right thing to do is run away from technology, science, rationality. John, Sylvia and the hippies are the heroes of that piece, you think? And the title character of LILA? We're supposed to emulate her intellectual emptiness? I'm sure you don't realize what a vile disease this is, this anti-intellectualsim.