Hi Horse, I imagine we'd all like to get off this subject, but I feel like it's important to clarify one small thing.
[Horse] The problem I have is with Bo claiming support from Pirsig, re: the > SOL, > when Pirsig has clearly stated that he does not support Bo's position. > Also Bo claiming that Pirsig is, somehow the originator of a position > that Pirsig specifically rejects. It's with the also part. You see, I _do_ think Pirsig himself was the originator of this idea. I'm not trying to be argumentative or perverse, but this _is_ the way I see it. Pirsig may not support it now, and that's fine, but it's there in ZMM. It's in the quotes I pushed out the other day and many others I didn't but can. I guarantee you I'm not smart enough to have thought this up all by myself, and it is why Bo never claims it to be his own personal idea either. I can't speak for him, but I think Bo genuinely sees it as straight out of ZMM and so do I. That's why I was so angered by the accusations of deception or lying and why I view this as a form of censorship. We can agree to disagree, but I still do. Just wanted you to understand where I'm coming from. Best, Mary > Hi Folks > > Hmmm! OK - not sure where to start. > Thanks for all the kind words and support and I'll try and make sense > of > all this. > > I think most of you have understood my position and what I'm saying but > I think there are still a few who haven't quite got the gist yet - > probably my fault for not explaining it as well as I should have. Also > there has been a certain amount of water-muddying going on (re: > censorship etc.) and this probably hasn't helped either. > > First let me say that I have no intention of removing Bo (or any of > those that agree with his position) for interpreting the MoQ in the way > he does, having a different slant on the intellectual level or for > stating and arguing his position in this respect. I also don't have a > problem with Bo (or anyone else for that matter) claiming that Pirsig > is > just plain wrong in what he says. > > The problem I have is with Bo claiming support from Pirsig, re: the > SOL, > when Pirsig has clearly stated that he does not support Bo's position. > Also Bo claiming that Pirsig is, somehow the originator of a position > that Pirsig specifically rejects. > For Bo and others to claim that Pirsig supports Bo's interpretation, > given the evidence and quotations that exist is, to my mind dishonest > and unreasonable. This is summed up very neatly by Arlo when he stated > the following: > > Bo's MOQ = the intellectual level IS SOM. > Pirsig's MOQ = the intellectual level is NOT SOM. > > If Bo, and those that support him, want to argue that SOM/SOL = > Intellectual level and then use quotes from Lila and ZMM etc. to > support > their position then they are free to do so - I don't agree with this > position and will say so when and where I see fit. But it needs to be > made clear that this is a different interpretation to the one that > Pirsig believes to be the case and stating or implying that this is > 'really' Pirsigs position will not be tolerated. Pirsig has said that > he > doesn't believe Bo's position, with regard to the intellectual level, > is > correct and his position should be respected and not simply ignored. > Even worse, with regard to SOM/SOL = Intellectual level is stating that > Pirsig doesn't know what he means and others know better than Pirsig > what Pirsig really means or thinks or that what he really said or meant > to say was...... etc. etc. Pirsig was quite clear about his position, > he is entitled to be respected for this so don't state or imply that > he's a fool or an idiot. > > In summary, claiming the MoQ supports SOM/SOL = Intellectual level and > quoting chunks from ZMM, Lila , SODV, Lila's Child etc. to support this > position is acceptable. Claiming that Pirsig supports SOM/SOL = > Intellectual level or that he originated this position or similar is > not > acceptable. > > A couple of points as a final note. > I think that it would be a good idea to allow newcomers to settle into > the forum for a few weeks instead of, figuratively, leaping on them as > soon as they are through the forum door and have their coats off and > regale them with the MoQ according to Bo. This isn't a removal offence > but it is certainly likely to get someone put on moderation if they are > unable to contain themselves sufficiently well. Apart from anything > else > it's just plain bloody rude. > I also think it would be a good idea that if an argument has gone on > for > a certain length of time or number of posts and is getting absolutely > nowhere then I should and will call a time-out to all involved for a > cooling off and reflection period. I will try and be polite and > reasonable about this and will expect those involved to respect my > decision, live with it and not give me a hard time about it or make > stupid accusations. > > If anyone is still unclear as to my position then say so and I'll try > and sort it out. > > Cheers > > > 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
