[MD] theories of truth

[david buchanan]

dmb said to djh:
Your claim is contradictory nonsense. According to Pirsig and the English language, degeneracy is not good.  

djh replied to dmb:

.... Just because biological things are in the strictest puritan sense - socially degenerate - does that mean we should never have sex or defictate? Degeneracy in one code is the quality of another.  Anything static is mystically degenerate - but that mystic degeneracy is statically good.


dmb says:
What!? Okay, now I'm absolutely positive that you are deeply confused about the meaning of the operative term: "degeneracy". It has become obvious at this point that you are distorting this idea beyond all recognition. Here you have basically said that all of static reality is degenerate and that degeneracy is sometimes good. Both of these claims are so asinine that I'm embarrassed for you. You are contradicting the dictionary AND the basic principle of Pirsig's moral hierarchy. No wonder you're not making any sense! You've construed absolutely everything as degenerate. That is the most unsubtle, ham-handed move I've seen in quite a while. Sex is only degenerate to the extent that it is allowed to trump higher values. It is only degenerate when it comes into CONFLICT with higher values and wins that conflict. This is the same principle that makes it degenerate to define the mystic reality. Like cheating on your wife, it is degenerate precisely because to subordinate the higher value to intellect. 

Think about it for just a minute, David. If everything is degenerate, then the word cannot be used to distinguish anything from anything else. If everything is degenerate, then the idea is completely useless in settling any dispute or resolving any conflict of values. If that's true, the MOQ doesn't even have a moral hierarchy anymore. The whole world of static patterns is just a jumble of values with no way to sort them or even know which way is up. Anyway, this explains why you keep ignoring or dismissing the hierarchical point that I keep making. Apparently, you don't see how meaningless the MOQ becomes when you make this bogus, bogus move.


That is the little piece of stupidity that has ruined any chance of having an intelligent conversation. You no longer talking about the MOQ but rather some bizarre, other worldly nonsense. That's WHY you cannot rightly see the distinction that determines whether or not definitions are degenerate. 


Why do you disagree? Because "all things are degenerate," you said, and "this is the subtle point that you seem to be missing." But of course that claim is anything but subtle and it's also quite wrong. It erases the distinctions that constitute the structure of the MOQ. Frankly, I'm shocked and horrified at the sheer stupidity of this claim. And since it would apply to literally everything in the encyclopedia, this claim is completely useless and meaningless. 

Since "the only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born" then your point does nothing but distinguish anything or anyone from anything else. It literally has no meaning and no bearing on any dispute. It is the most pointless point you could make. — and to whose birth no thought has been given."



dmb had concluded:
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. 


djh replied:

Look at what I value dmb.  I'm here enjoying an intellectual discussion with you here right now. If that's the case do you really think I'm anti-intellectual? 



dmb says:
Well, I'm glad you're enjoying the conversation but I'm not having any fun at all and, more importantly, I don't see any intellectual quality in what you are saying. Have you failed to notice my complaints? I keep responding with fairly strong words like "nonsense" and "stupidity" and "asinine". I keep pointing out the various ways in which you are not making sense. Don't you realize that these are comments on your LACK of intellectual quality? How harsh do I have to get? How rude do I have to be for you to realize how low my opinion is? 


Let me be quite clear, David. I think your argument is idiotic. It's stupid. In fact, your response here (To ask if I REALLY think your position is anti-intellectual) strikes me as unbelievable obtuse. Dude, you are explicitly saying that all intellectual quality is degenerate. I don't see how it could be possible to be any more anti-intellectual than you already are. Not only are you trying to make a case that intellectual quality is inherently degenerate, you are doing so in a manner that shows a disturbing lack of intellectual quality. It's hostile, hateful and it makes no sense. 



Sorry, David, but I'm convinced that talking to you is a waste of time. All you managed to accomplish is to destroy any respect I had and made me into an enemy.