I chime in here with Platt, Horse. I believe allowing a stubborn curmudgeon his say (and say... and say... and say) is ultimately a good thing for MD. It sharpens one's wits to have to argue against a wrong position, and I've learned a lot in wrestling with Bo's incoherence.
John On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:43 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Horse, > > Oh, oh. The spectre of censorship arises. Now the arbiters of "the truth" > threaten. Does your warning to sentence Bo to Siberia also apply to me, > Mary, > Marsha and others who are at least willing to entertain the idea that the > Pirsig may be wrong? > > Enforcement of purity of thought smacks of the totalitarian mind. And > Pirsig > would be the last person in the world to say you must agree with him or > else > you are persona non grata. > > I urge you to reconsider your position. No doubt your motive is well > intentioned, but please consider that censorship violates the "moral right > of > intellect to be free of social control" -- a basic tenet of the MOQ. > > Regards, > Platt > > On 1 Jul 2010 at 13:50, Horse wrote: > > > Hi Bo > > > > This paragraph extracted from your recent post is what I (and many > > others) are objecting to and is precisely what I have asked you to drop. > > If you continue to ignore my request there will likely be unfortunate > > consequences. This _really_ is not what I want. > > Ian has already pointed out your inability to see the honesty issue when > > you say "point taken..." and then continue with the same old, same old. > > > > On 01/07/2010 07:18, [email protected] wrote: > > > OK, point taken, but listen: Pirsig is the origin of the Intellect = > S/O idea (SOL) get that into your head, > > > > No Bo, get this into _YOUR_ head. YOU are the originator of the > > "Intellect = S/O idea (SOL)". NOT Pirsig, but YOU. > > Pirsig has stated quite clearly that he does not agree with your > > interpretation and to continue to insist that he is the originator of an > > idea that he has explicitly rejected is dishonest, misleading and plain > > wrong. Please drop this now before it escalates to an outcome that will > > please no-one. > > On this list you are entitled to express your ideas about the MoQ, but > > you are not entitled to distort the position of the originator of the > > MoQ - Robert Pirsig > > > > > I'm dead tired of this being presented as some pet idea of mine, > > > > It is your idea Bo and deluding yourself into believing that Pirsig has > > any connection to it is self-deception and consequently a means to > > deceive others. Please stop now. > > > > > it's written clearly in ZAMM for you (all) to see. > > > > This is your interpretation which Pirsig has rejected. How many times do > > you have to be told this by members of MD and Pirsig himself? > > > > > That was the revelation for me in its time: finally a > > > thinker who had SOM by the throat, but then LILA where intellect > > > looked uncannily like GOF mind, meaning that SOM was back in town. > > > > > > > This is your opinion and interpretation Bo, not that of Pirsig. The MoQ > > sees SOM and the MoQ itself as Intellectual patterns and not SOM as the > > whole of the Intellectual level. If you want to argue your position to > > the contrary then that's fine. Just don't try and make out that Pirsig > > supports your position, that he is really the originator of your > > position or that he supports the idea that SOM (or (S/O) = Intellectual > > level. This position is dishonest. > > > > > It has haunted the MOQ for ten plus years and Pirsig HAS migrated > > > back towards Phaedrus original insight. > > > > This is untrue Bo, you (and one or two others) have unsuccessfully > > pushed for this position for at least the last ten years and attempted > > to convince others that there is a problem where there is not a problem. > > You cannot continue to claim support from Pirsig for a position which he > > has stated clearly that he doesn't support. This now has to stop. Pirsig > > has moved on, in many ways from the position that he held in ZMM - it's > > time you did so too. Or at least it's time that you stopped claiming > > support where it doesn't exist. Pirsig has expanded and enhanced his > > position since ZMM was published. He hasn't back-pedalled, recanted, > > lost his way or secretly (or overtly) supported your SOL interpretation. > > This is all in your head. > > Make the SOL stand on it's own merit if you can but please stop > > dishonestly invoking support where it doesn't exist. Many members of MD, > > myself included, have tried very hard over the last several months to > > get you to see that this is wrong but you have refused to accept this. > > Please don't continue along this path Bo, I like you a lot and you have > > been at the core of MD for a long time so please, please please consider > > what I have said very carefully. > > > > > > Horse > > 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 > 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
