Struan, David L and Y'all:
I'm sorry about yesterday's post. The insulting examples were entirely
un-necessary. I could've made the same points using a fictional name or
flattering metaphors. BUT that was the point!
Humor loses its' zing when it has to be explained, but I was trying to
demonstrate the absurdity of mixing rational discourse with insults and
abuse, as Struan seems to do so often. I really don't get his strange
mixture of condescending contempt and defensive insecurity, lashing out at
the least provocation or disagreement with such a refined and spectacular
vocabulary. Its quite something to behold, a paradox like a savage
aristocrat, a rabid bear in a tuxedo. It would be almost admirable if it
weren't such a drag and a distraction. When will Struan learn to use his
powers for good instead of evil?
Is this not a forum for debate and discussion? Doesn't Struan participate by
choice? I mean, its not like we're bothering him at home in the middle of
the night with philosophical questions to save money on tuition. He has come
here of his own "free will" to disagree with almost every major premise of
the MOQ, and then has the gall to insult anyone who disagrees with his
misunderstanding of the very ideas we are here to discuss. And when Struan
is pressed to explain these fundamental objections, he answers with silence,
obfuscation or hostility. How frustrating is that !?!?!? Thus, the sandbox,
black hole and tornado metaphors.
Honestly, I don't count it a victory for my ego if Struan admits or accepts
my points. I'll consider it a victory if Struan simply addresses the issues
like a gentleman. All I'm saying is that I wish he'd play nicely or find
another sandbox.
(Congrats on the football game, you studley jock he-man!... Oh, you mean
soccer? Never mind.)
******************************************************************
FRESH START
Here is an example "normal" criticism of one of Struan's points - but its
not an insult - its a real question. AND I'm begging you, Struan, for a real
answer. Perhaps we can use it as a fresh start on a new abuse-free
relationship? Please surprize me. OK? Please?
The issue concerns your metap...er, analogy of the football match to
illustrate the difference between a person's belief about the game's outcome
and the actual state of affairs. I understand what you're trying to say
about that and it's true as far as it goes. But you've also described the
problem in SOM terms. There is a little MOQ fix on top it all, refering to
thoughts about the score as intellectual static patterns, but the basic
architecture of the example is pure SOM. If I understand it correctly,
you've simply made a distinction between a "subjective" opinion of the score
and the "objective" truth that is up on the score board for everyone to see.
And the subjective opinion must correspond to that score board for it to be
a "right" idea.
Honestly, it not that I'm trying to catch you in some semantic trickery. Its
not that you've just used subjects and objects in your sentences. We all do
that. Its unavoidable. But it seems to me that the basic architecture of
your view is classic SOM, even as you deny its existence. And it seems to me
that the replacement of those underlying assumptions is exactly why the
issue of free will doesn't come up in the MOQ. The "self" is no longer seen
as a seperate and autonomous agent, it is no longer merely a subject in that
sense.
For a while our debate centered around your assertion that there is no such
thing as SOM, either implicitly or explicitly, and that Pirsig had invented
it. And so you have unintentionally demonstrated that you hold such a view
even as you deny that views existence. This is known as PREFORMATIVE
CONTRADICTION. The most obvious example I can think of would be something
like... "I can not write a sentence in the English language." There I have
preformed a feat even as I deny my ability to preform it. Thus it is a
preformative contradiction.
So the question for you, besides an explaination for the preformative
contradiction, is the one I put out there already, but has not yet been
fully explored or answered. Why doesn't it come up?
Or let me put it this way - because I think we have come closer to the
answer - How is the MOQ's concept of "self" so different from SOM's that the
issue of free will can disappear? How are questions of free will shown to be
bad questions, wrong questions, by the MOQ?
I've put questions out there a week ago that have yet to be answered. Rich
has said he's thinking about it, but where is Roger? Platt? jc? It's a
worthy topic, no? Is it the fear of flames? Crunched for time? Falling in
love? Stumped perhaps? Please join in on this same topic again, won't you?
Thanks for your time, DMB
PS The meaning of SOM is the topic of our discussion in the other forum, so
we should try to avoid it over here. Maybe we ought to stick to the issues
of self and free will, etc. But then we were talking about it before it was
elected over there, so I guess they are the usurpers this time?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST