Well, if you consider plain English consisting of everyday words and short sentences to be a "base level" then I guess Pirsig's writing fits your definition. He proves that philosophy need not be difficult for the average reader, nor require a dictionary to understand. In fact, Pirsig's prose demonstrates quality writing that everyone here would do well to emulate. All it takes is dedication to the reader's wish to effortlessly understand rather than the writer's desire to impress his peers.
Regards, Platt On 16 Apr 2010 at 3:11, Horse wrote: > What's plain English for you Platt is probably confusing and overly > intellectual for many - perhaps most. Have you never heard of a > dictionary - paper or online? Or is it too much to ask that people > involved in a forum for the discussion of philosophy make an effort to > understand the language of that area of knowledge? Just about every word > in the vast majority of posts on this forum are plain ordinary English > and if members can't be bothered to look up the occasional word that is > specific to philosophy, but instead choose to run down those with a more > extensive vocabulary than their own then that's not only ignorant but > downright pathetic. Alternatively, don't read the sodding posts if the > conversation or the words in the conversation are too long and > complicated - just don't complain because some people are too damn lazy > to make the effort to understand the conversations that they choose to > read - and if you can't stand the heat then get the hell out of the > kitchen. > As I said before, there's room for many styles and points of view but > trying to drag down to some base level those with the ability and > gumption to do better is a clear sign of social patterns trying to > subordinate intellectual patterns - and that's immoral according to the MoQ. > And if you think that's arrogant then fine - I couldn't care less. > > On 16/04/2010 01:28, [email protected] wrote: > > Do you mean that those who disagree with your views or favor plain > > English are ignorant? I expect such arrogance from Arlo, but it's > > surprising coming from you. > > > > Regards, > > Platt > > > > > > On 15 Apr 2010 at 17:04, Horse wrote: > > > > > >> There's room here for many styles and points of view and I think it's > >> detrimental to Pirsigs work to let certain comments go > >> unchallenged.Ignorance may be bliss but only for the ignorant. > >> It also seems to me that most of those that complain about this academic > >> insertion and the big words and technical stuff are also the ones that > >> distort the MoQ the most. Interesting correlation maybe! > >> > >> Cheers 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/md/archives.html
