On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > 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? I didn't get that. I thought the narrator's point was that he agreed in the main with "political reactionaries" and "cliched" carries a negative connotation that impugns the narrator's point beyond what I read in the text. [dmb] At some point you're got to realize that responses like this only make you look really stupid. [John] Well I'm just a new observer here, but I must say from my viewpoint, Platt has consistently been the least stupid-looking dialoguer I've ever met. I keep waiting for him to say something stupid, since so many smart people accuse him of being stupid, I figure he must be sometimes. Still waiting. > Platt said:Finally, I note when I asked for examples of my hijacking the > MOQ you came up empty. Why am I not surprised? > [John] I'm assuming that's rhetorical. > 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. [John] Well sometimes the best confusion is the confusion just beyond belief. And heck, I discuss stuff that doesn't exist a hundred times a day. SOM for instance. [dmb] 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. [John] Yeah, almost. Platt can certainly stick up for himself, but just in the interest of keeping it interesting, I'll say a few things regarding above: First, to hijack the MoQ is impossible. It's an intellectual tool and any individual that discovers a use for it is free to utilize it's teachings. You can hijack my saw, because it's an object. You can't hijack my thinking because the more I share it, the more there is to share. Second, ZAMM theatrically and Lila dramatically both play out as anti-intellectual stories, hence the showdowns with academics and victorians. Third, Pirsig sure came across as reactionary to me- pissed off dude with an axe to grind in a world that went the wrong way and refuses to listen. You don't call that "reactionary" then I don't know what you mean by the word. Forth, my wife is calling and it's time to go. But mark my words Dave, pickin' on Platt ain't the way to go. John the Platt-fan ------------ Self is simply Choice, so choose good ------------ 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/
