Yeah, you said. You think I didn't know that ? You on the other hand seem to believe there has been some issue with freedom of speech on MD. Welcome back Marsha.
Ian On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian, > > These are RMP's words. Listen for yourself. > > > Marsha > > > > On Jul 12, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > >> Oohh, oohh, Nazi's 4 lines in - do I win a prize ? >> >> So thank Horse, freedom of speech is upheld on MD. >> Ian >> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:37 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Arlo, >>> >>> To paraphrase RMP: 'any culture which permits freedom of speech is morally >>> superior to any culture which does not. Because in this Metaphysics of >>> Quality, intellect is a higher level of evolution, and when a social >>> organization, whether it's nazis, or communists, or anybody, tries to >>> prevent this evolution from taking place that is an immoral act, that's an >>> evil act. And you see it happening. Once you understand this, you see it >>> happening in all sorts of places that you wouldn't expect it normally.' >>> >>> This is from the 'Church of Reason' section of THE MOQ at OXFORD dvd. >>> Notice it doesn't state an freedom of speech exemption for the MD List. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 12, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: >>> >>>> [Bo] >>>> I hate to the make it personal and would have liked to say "...those who >>>> have supported the MOQ" because I know that Mary and Platt do defend the >>>> MOQ. Likewise shame on the hypocrites who - to my great satisfaction - are >>>> those who don't know the first thing about the MOQ - Ian and Dan f.ex. - >>>> from DMB I didn't expect anything else. >>>> >>>> [Arlo] >>>> I'm taking the liberty to rectify the poor rhetoric and ignorance in this >>>> short example of "why Bo has nothing relevant to say". >>>> >>>> I hate to the make it personal and would have liked to say "...those who >>>> have supported [my interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ" because I know that >>>> Mary and Platt do defend [my interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ. Likewise >>>> shame on the hypocrites who - to my great satisfaction - are those who >>>> don't know the first thing about [why my interpretation of the MOQ is >>>> better than Pirsig's] MOQ - Ian and Dan f.ex. - from DMB I didn't expect >>>> anything else. >>>> >>>> There. Accurate. Rhetorically sound. >>>> >>>> What Bo has proven here, though, is just what I pointed out the other day, >>>> the only expenditure here is to claim interpretive legitimacy by claiming >>>> that there is ONE MOQ, and of this even the author himself is not to be >>>> trusted to deliver the "strong" interpretation. >>>> >>>> [Pirsig] >>>> There already is a metaphysics of Quality. A subject-object metaphysics >>>> is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality - the >>>> first slice of undivided experience is into subjects and objects. >>>> >>>> [Arlo] >>>> Correct. What we conventionally call "THE MOQ", the convention that has >>>> confounded Bo since I've been a member of the list, is what we, those >>>> interested in Pirsig's ideas, use to refer to specifically Pirsig's ideas. >>>> >>>> This is why Bo is more concerned with claiming legitimacy for his revision >>>> of Pirsig's work (claiming it is THE metaphysics of Quality) rather than >>>> just stating the simple and elegant truth. >>>> >>>> Bo's ideas are a revision of Pirsig's ideas. >>>> >>>> Bo's formulation for a metaphysics of Quality is a critical revision of >>>> Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality. >>>> >>>> Indeed, I'm going to back up for a moment to Pirsig's comment above and >>>> say "of Quality" is redundant. It concretizes something (not a problem for >>>> most of us, but apparently a great burden for the SOLists). >>>> >>>> You could just say "Pirsig's metaphysics" and be done with it. >>>> >>>> Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's >>>> metaphysics. >>>> >>>> Accurate. Rhetorically sound. Valid. Simple. >>>> >>>> Back to Bo's horrible rhetoric. >>>> >>>> [Bo] >>>> So, from now on I'll drop the SOL and call it by it's proper designation: >>>> "The Strong Interpretation of the MOQ". >>>> >>>> [Arlo] >>>> Actually, if you want its "proper designation", you'd have to go with "A >>>> Strong Interpretation of Pirsig's MOQ"... in other words "Bo's MOQ". >>>> >>>> Frankly, I'm continually amazed that so much effort is spent in such >>>> shoddy ways to grasp any straw of authoritative legitimacy possible. But >>>> since you have never really understood Pirsig, I guess no one should be >>>> surprised. >>>> >>>> [Bo] >>>> Whether Pirsig agrees or not is of little interest... >>>> >>>> [Arlo] >>>> In your entire post, this is the only nine words that make any sense. >>>> Kudos, as Ian said. >>>> >>>> [Bo] >>>> ... no one can copyright reality and the MOQ is not an expansion of the >>>> intellectual level, but an expansion of reality itself. >>>> >>>> [Arlo] >>>> I'll take the liberty to correct this monstrosity as well. >>>> >>>> "... no one can copyright reality and [my interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ >>>> is not an expansion of the intellectual level, but an expansion of reality >>>> itself. " >>>> >>>> Its really no wonder, Bo, with such a dismal display of "thinking", only >>>> three or four people here take you seriously or pay attention to this SOL >>>> nonsense at all. >>>> >>>> If you had been paying attention, you'd have seen I provided you a sound >>>> rhetorical and argumentatively valid platform last week. >>>> >>>> [Arlo previously] >>>> Pirsig's ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" (the foundation for which we >>>> are all here, to be sure), and Bo's ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" >>>> that is a critical revision of Pirsig's ideas. >>>> >>>> Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level >>>> to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be >>>> one on many intellectual patterns", instead of "THE metaphysics of Quality >>>> holds the intellectual level to SOM". >>>> >>>> [Arlo] >>>> Your latest post is simply more evidence that you are eternally trapped in >>>> some battle (with yourself?) for interpretative legitimacy. I had hoped, >>>> as I'm sure others were doing, that your time away was spent figuring that >>>> out. Obviously not. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> 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 > 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
