[Ham]
> If I were a psychologist, I would conclude from
> these woeful complaints that
> your conscience is hurting and that you should take
> another walk in the
> woods.
But your not... hahahahha! As to another walk in
the woods, but I will thank you.
[Ham]
> Just for the record, I have NEVER referred to anyone
> here as a "Parrot" --
> with or without the cap "P". In fact, I've never
> even used the word. It
> was Ron who said "I'm not a Pirsig Parrot," as you
> now have also, so if the
> shoe fits, you can wear it.
WoW! Sooorrrry!
[Ham]
> I have used the term "acolyte", which means
> "follower in the same path or
> group," to describe the MD participants in general.
> I've also suggested,
> here and elsewhere, that Mr. Pirsig has established
> something of a cult
> following, in the sense that his writings are
> constantly quoted to prove or
> refute the validity of the arguments debated. I
> think almost any outsider
> would agree with that assessment.
Ok, on a MOQ website, we'd expect that. On a MOQ
website, an understanding of MoQ would help, but you
like your thesis, which is fine and dandy, as long as
you know it's YOUR thesis that uses Essentialism that
has a history. You quote Eckart (spelling?), so...
what's your point here anyways, maybe your just
sayin', I don't know.
[Ham]
> I have never claimed, let alone "insisted", that I
> know the MoQ better than
> its author. That would be ludicrous.
When you discuss the MoQ in a way that clearly
differs from what Pirsig is saying, such as the basic
meanings of what static and dynamic are, maybe I'm
incorrect, maybe everybody here differs on what static
and dynamic are. You like to refer to the dictionary
as to what these terms mean, instead of understanding
what the MOQ is trying to do, which takes some
redefining - it is a metaphysics unto its' own.
You've redefined essence, I'd say same thing.
[Ham]
> I'm sorry you feel that I talk over
> you. If this is true, it's certainly not
> intentional. I'm a "learner" here
> like all of you, and much of what I've learned about
> the MoQ has started
> with critical questionning.
I think this "talking over me" stems from your
fringe understanding of the MoQ, which is very
unclear. You know your thesis much better, but I'd
say once you understand the MoQ then you could make a
better decision as to what the MoQ is, but then again,
I also didn't like pineapple pizza the first time I
tasted it and I still don't like it and maybe I never
will.
[Ham]
> Also, I don't understand the bit about my "copying"
> somebody else's
> philosophy. All philosophers borrow ideas from from
> each other, which is
> what has sustained Philosophy as a cumulative effort
> through the ages.
I agree. It is your repeated use that the MoQ is
poetic. Are you saying it's NOT philosophic? Poetic
to me states something creative. Copying locks out
creativity. Much of this is probably due to me not
understanding your thesis as well as you do, but then
again I haven't spent years on an Essence website and
read books on Ham's Essence. Now as to the MoQ, I've
read some books and waded through a website about it
for over a year now, so I don't expect myself to
understand your thesis as much as you do.
[Ham]
> I think you misunderstand the process. You seem to
be
> implying that this is a
> form of plagiarism or "cheating" on my part. I can
> assure you that the
> fundamental tenets of Essentialism are my own, and
> if you find them stated
> by someone else calling himself an "essentialist",
> I'd surely like to know
> about it.
NO, that's not what I'm saying.
[Ham]
> I know you like the MoQ and feel you've benefited
> from it, and I'm happy for
> you. I can even understand why a dissenter like me
> can be a thorn in your
> side.
It's your dissent accompanying a seemingly
misunderstood view of what the MOQ basics are, such as
what static and dynamic means. Maybe I'm incorrect,
but that's how it seems. I've seen it before. You
come off as if you overlook the MOQ without any effort
to understand it, but then say its' wrong or
insufficient. I would say the same thing about
canoeing. If you've never tried it, then how can you
really say you do or don't like it. It's the same as
a child. They don't like green beans, but have they
tried them - no, then how can you say you don't like
it, try it once, but then again, my parents said this
to my brother when it came to red beets, so he finally
tried them and threw-up all over the place. He likes
red beets now and attributes his throwing-up to his
mental state at the time.
[Ham]
> But please don't accuse me of remarks and claims
that I didn't make,
> or take my remarks as an attack on you or anybody
> else. I hope we're all sufficiently grown-up to
distinguish healthy
> criticism from personal insults.
I hope so...
breezy,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
