Platt said to dmb:Thanks DMB for reproducing the passage in question. It proves my point. In an single sentence you quote Pirsig directly "a new spiritual rationality" followed immediately by "not cliched ideas about self-reliance," falsely implying Pirsig said the latter. It's a rhetorical trick called conflation, used to mislead.
dmb says:Wow. It is really possible to be confused about something so obvious? Is there anyone else in this forum who is unable to see that "cliched ideas about self-reliance" refers to what the narrator says? Again, Pirsig said, "There are political reactionaries who've been saying something close to this for years." [That's what "cliched" means.] "We do need a return to individual integrity, self-reliance and old-fashioned gumption." [That's one of the ideas about self-reliance.] Frankly, to suggest that my phrase was "falsely implying" anything or that it constitutes some kind of trick is just stupid. My phrase is a fair, simple and accurate depiction of the quote's content. Your point hasn't been proved by the quote. Quite the opposite. If reactionaries has already been talking about it for years back in 1974, then what the hell is tricky about calling a cliche? If the narrator says we need a return to self-reliance, how does it constitute a conflation to call this an idea about self-reliance? If you're an adult human being, why do I need to spell out this obviousness? At some point you're got to realize that responses like this only make you look really stupid. Platt said:Finally, I note when I asked for examples of my hijacking the MOQ you came up empty. Why am I not surprised? dmb says:And responses like this only make you look like a nut case. This very exchange is about the example you're denying. To deny the existence of something even as you are discussing is confused beyond belief. You've quoted these cliched ideas about self-reliance to construe Pirsig as a fellow reactionary and the MOQ as a supporter of your politics in general. You've used Pirsig's critique of SOM rationality to support your anti-intellectual attitudes and even your racial prejudices. You've also highjacked the MOQ to support Randian individuality, creationism, free-market economics and so on. There is no shortage of examples. The majority of your posts distort the MOQ so there must be literally thousands of examples. But you can't even see this one simple example so I'm certainly not going to waste my time documenting any more of them. Besides, I think your constant distortions are already completely obvious to everybody but you. Well, almost everybody. ZAMM - Chapter 29: >> "My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the >> world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that's all. >> God, I don't want to have any more enthusiasm for big programs full of >> social planning for big masses of people that leave individual Quality out. >> These can be left alone for a while. There's a place for them but they've >> got to be built on a foundation of Quality within the individuals involved. >> We've had that individual Quality in the past, exploited it as a natural >> resource without knowing it, and now it's just about depleted. Everyone's >> just about out of gumption. And I think it's about time to return to the >> rebuilding of this American resource...individual worth. There are political >> reactionaries who've been saying something close to this for years. I'm not >> one of them, but to the extent they're talking about real individual worth >> and not just an excuse for giving more money to the rich, they're right. We >> do need a return to individual integrity, self-reliance and old-fashioned >> gumption. We really do. I hope that in this Chautauqua some directions have >> been pointed to. Phædrus went a different path from the idea of individual, >> personal Quality decisions. I think it was a wrong one, but perhaps if I >> were in his circumstances I would go his way too. He felt that the solution >> started with a new philosophy, or he saw it as even broader than that...a >> new spiritual rationality...in which the ugliness and the loneliness and the >> spiritual blankness of dualistic technological reason would become >> illogical. Reason was no longer to be "value free." Reason was to be >> subordinate, logically, to Quality, and he was sure he would find the cause >> of its not being so back among the ancient Greeks, whose mythos had endowed >> our culture with the tendency underlying all the evil of our technology, the >> tendency to do what is "reasonable" even when it isn't any good. That was >> the root of the whole thing. Right there. I said a long time ago that he was >> in pursuit of the ghost of reason. This is what I meant. Reason and Quality >> had become separated and in conflict with each other and Quality had been >> forced under and reason made supreme somewhere back then." >> _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 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/
