Hi Ron, Ron had said: What disappointed me Was Bo could talk a good game but he couldn't demonstrate A damn thing.
Matt said: Ya' know, the thing that annoyed me most about Bo was his "no one has demonstrated I'm wrong" way of talking. If you think you are taking up a similar mantle as Bo's (though I might be mistaken), I would leave that particular legacy by the wayside. Ron said: I mean demonstrate or explain why people feel concepts work or Don't work. Sometimes I spend a lot of time describing why I feel A concept works only to get a "it feels wrong some how" reply. Which is o.k. but it would be nice if they explained why they feel that way then it would give me an opportunity to explore it more thoroughly. I explained to Bo why I felt his SOL failed to explain concepts any better than SOM. He kept stating that it gave MoQ more explanatory power, I inquired as to how. He never gave me an explanation other than it does because I say so. Which was frustrating because I think he was really on to A serious issue. Matt: Absolutely, you are right. I would describe our feelings of wrongness as our DQ response. The articulation of the feeling is the static patterns. If you are never able to articulate a static pattern on behalf of the feeling, you vacate the static latching process, which means you'll probably never get your feeling latched so that it can be moved beyond later in evolution. My feeling about deep issues in Pirsig interpretation and philosophy is that at some point, the level of articulation needed moves beyond what the MD is capable of handling. In other words, I'm suggesting that the discussion group format is too small to handle the deep fight/arguments that would be needed to move the conversation forward. I take that to be the serious issue involved. Ron said: I think a call for an explanation is justified to support an idea In a pragmatic sense in some cases. I feel I gave a marginally adequate Case for a criteria in the paragraph above the statement of mine You snipped from my post to Marsha, but I did choose my terminology poorly As you noted. It was not my intent to come off like Bo in this regard. Matt: I agree completely about calls for explanation. I'm not attempting to judge the particulars of the conversation, but taking a right turn and judging a particular style conversations sometimes come packaged in, i.e. the rhetoric used to pursue positions. I think you've shown that this particular kind of rhetoric is incidental to your position, as it sometimes is in others (which is what I would say of my least favorite passages of Pirsig, for instance). However, this kind of Platonic rhetoric is part and parcel of some people's positions--like Plato's (like when he distinguishes rhetoric from dialectic). And in the case of Bo, I tend to think the rhetoric is tied into his position on Pirsig, which makes him the Plato to Pirsig's Socrates (which is why he thinks Pirsig was wrong at the crucial moment, because Socrates was a Sophist). Matt said: Calls for demonstration are cheap, as one is usually allowed, after the challenge is taken up, to wiggle out (because of one's own various rebuttals). Ron said: Kinda like Ham and Bo's methods? Matt: Or mine or DMB's. We all make the calls, we all wiggle. The calls and wiggles aren't necessarily insidious, and it is something we all do. Sometimes the wiggling is good. Sometimes the calls are good. It's just life. And we're trying to improve life a little bit. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Now you can invite friends from Facebook and other groups to join you on Windows Live™ Messenger. Add now. https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_AddNow_Now 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/
