Jo, I don't really get your points but my response inserted :
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 1, 2010, at 22:44, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/29/10 1:01 AM, "Ian Glendinning" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Ian and all,
Iqn, imho your point misses the mark. You are agreeing with Horse’s
assessment that Bo is posting a “dishonest misrepresentation”.
Yes, based on years of persistent dishonest argument.
The only
evidence for that is “He said, she said”. If our opinions are
so foreign
to logic, then, Horse can say “Shut UP!”
I honestly have no idea what you mean here.
Bo is trying to make the best of a
logic that accepts a “social level” as a level of evolution. I
would argue
that forever! Should I quake in my boots that I will be asked to
leave?
Me too. No idea what this has to do with horse's complaint
Bo has always been respectful in his discussion about what Pirsig
meant.
It is not respectful to pass off Bo's formulation as if it was created
or explicitly endorsed by pirsig.
Does respect mean he can’t have a thought of his own
Of course he can, but he can't dishonestly say it was pirsig's thought.
I have found Bo’s take on the evolution of intellect profound,
Not profound, just the normal interpretation. The history of intellect
is not being disagreed with.
and if Pirsig
and Horse, his representative,
No horse is not pirsig's rep he is mine and yours. Upholding the rules
of this forum, not the ideas of pirsig.
do not agree I have no problem with
disagreement among friends!.
Bo is still my friend. I recommend he takes horse's point seriously,
and address it.
Should we then not think for ourselves when
discussing what Pirsig said?
Dumb question. Yes. Just not the point at issue.
Let Bo and Horse fight it out!
This is not about horse's original thoughts or opinions of Bo's
thoughts. It's about respect for the institution of moderator applying
our rules
Joe
And Bo, whilst I defend the fact that you do have valid points,
I completely agree with Horse when he accuses you of dishonest
misrepresentation in suggesting that your SOLAQI interpretation is
somehow the true interpretation intended by and subsequently agreed
with by Pirsig. That is entirely spurious (and wilfully misleading to
"newcomers") and undermines any value in any points that you do have.
I have, and Ron recently, engaged in direct dialectical questioning
with you, providing opportunities for direct answers that might lead
somewhere interesting, and at that point you clam up or change the
subject, and repeat your "one true way" claims.
Dishonesty is exactly why we have a moderator.
Ian
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
