> [Krimel]
> Why do you think this is so difficult, especially for people familiar
> with
> Pirsig?
>
> [Arlo]
> The answer to this question is embedded in the question itself. Short
> answer,
> "it's not".
>
> Platt's selective decontextualization and dismissal of 90% of what Pirsig
> says
> serves his need to deify "Dynamic Quality".
What 90% does Platt dismiss?
> His "Qualigod" embraces all
> the
> usual associations of a "god"; an external, guiding, manipulative "force"
> that
> intermittently appears to the select few.
Do you deny that Pirsig describes DQ as a force?
Remember how he attacked me a
> few
> posts ago, "Dynamic Quality has never appeared to you." And a thousand
> angels
> fell from the sky.
When did DQ stop you in your tracks?
> Its why he refuses to answer questions about the distinctions between
> "chance"
> and "DQ",
No refusal except in your imagination. Platt has repeated many times:
chance is ignorance; DQ a positive force for good.
> or about his belief that "only man can respond to DQ",
Platt acknowledges the capital punishment context of Pirsig's statement:
"These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality.
Only a living being can do that." The context does not include plants and
animals.
> as he is
> too
> much a coward to reveal his theistic Qualigod outright.
How can Platt reveal what he doesn't have?
> Instead, he
> defends it
> by copying and pasting a few out-of-context quotes that even HE cannot
> defend
> when they are examined.
What quotes?
I told Andre that as soon as his quotes are taken
> and
> critically examined towards what he is saying, all he will do is bury his
> head
> in the sand and begin spewing talk-radio mire ("arrogant academic sucking
> his
> thumb in the ivory tower"... so predictable, the only thing missing was
> "commie"... which I am sure is coming).
Platt merely reciprocates your evil ad hominems.
> What's funny too is that Platt holds his decontextual quotes to be Cannon,
> and
> accuses anyone who challenges them as being a heretic, all the while
> dismissing
> himself the great bulk of what Pirsig says.
What "great bulk" is that?
> You see the analogue here,
> of
> course. This is EXACTLY what many people do with religion. They cling to
> one or
> two out-of-context passages, mock and ridicule as heretical anyone who
> dares
> challenge these, but then they themselves ignore the bulk of whatever
> their
> particular "bible" contains. (Example, they cling to "homosexuality is
> bad
> (Mmmkay?)" but ignore that the repeated primary message of Jesus is
> compassion;
> feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and healing the sick.)
What out of context passages?
> So if you challenge the decontextualized Brujo quote, you sir are a
> heretic!
> How DARE you challenge Pirsig!! But if you mention ZMM at all, or anything
> else
> from LILA that contradicts that one quote, you are dismissed as relying
> on
> "outdated" ideas or simply ignored outright.
When did Platt accuse anyone of being a heretic?
> Welcome to the World of Qualigod.
Welcome to world of lies, half-truths and unsupported assertions -- a
world lacking any dialogic value whatsoever.
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/
