From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sun Oct 23 2005 - 07:23:06 BST
Mark M,
Scott said:
I doubt if Nagarjuna would have any difficulty with
evolution. But I think he would regard that last
statement as dubious, as assuming that evolution has a
cosmic goal, and cosmic goals are idols.
Mark 23-10-05:
Right, so there hasn't been any progress in any sense
whatsoever since the invention of writing.
Only a tit would advance that idea.
Scott:
I didn't deny progress. I just deny absolute progress to an absolute goal,
and I think that Nagarjuna would also deny that.
Scott said:
Its the locution "aiming for" that gets deconstructed,
and it is certainly not concept-free.
Mark 23-10-05:
Locutus of Borg more like. Resistance to 'Scottalk' is
futile. This thread was hopefully 'aimed' at
discussing an MOQ description of cybernetics and the
possibility of deriving identity from Universal flux.
Fat chance when you're involved.
Scott:
You said that I was talking about deconstructing DQ, which is concept-free
and so cannot be deconstructed. I replied that I was not talking about
deconstructing DQ, rather I was talking about deconstructing the concept of
"aiming for DQ". You apparently don't like to be corrected.
As to whether I changed the subject of the thread, you provided a
description of intellect as cybernetic. I responded by saying that I thought
the description was good, but that I had two criticisms. One was that I
think that intellect is not just cybernetic. The other was that I thought
that your description would be simpler and better if intellect was seen to
be DQ, as well as SQ. Is it the case that you can't accept any criticism,
that you see it as changing the subject? Plus you keep misreading what I
say, and then blame me for confusing things. For example:
Scott said (according to Mark):
But it is bad to base a metaphysics on it (DQ)
Scott:
I did not say it is bad to base a metaphysics on DQ. I said it was bad to
base a metaphysics on a (in my view) faulty understanding of the relation
between form and formlessness, in particular one that privileges
formlessness over form.
Mark 23-10-05:
This thread wasn't about your pet dislike of the MOQ,
it was about discussing possible ways to advance it a
bit more.
Western universities attribute metaphysics to those,
like Nagarjuna, who base them on emptiness, but that
appears to have slipped your mind? However, if Pirsig
does the same you get all huffy. Be consistent for
heavens sake.
Scott:
Again, you misread. I base my metaphysics on emptiness. Pirsig does also.
They are different because we interpret emptiness differently. Pirsig
privileges DQ over SQ. I do not. What is inconsistent about that?
Scott said:
No argument here, as you are saying that intellect
implies value.
Mark 23-10-05:
Are you stupid?
Intellect does not imply value in the MOQ, value IS
intellect, period. Read Lila.
Scott:
The MOQ says that where there is intellect (or any experience) there is
value. I agree with that. That is what I meant by "intellect implies value".
The MOQ does NOT say, and would deny, that where there is value there is
intellect. I do not agree with that, in that I hold that where there is
value there is intellect, that value implies intellect. I gave my reasons
for saying this. How do you respond to those reasons? You don't. Why not?
You say I should read Lila. Well, I have. Please show me something I have
said that indicates a misunderstanding of the MOQ. Most likely it will turn
out to be a case where you have misunderstood what I said.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 23 2005 - 11:23:54 BST