Marsha: Ask Mr. Pirsig for evidence. When I have asked others for evidence I get a sign.
No more, I don't want to strain Horse's tolerance. You are such a sweet pea. On Jul 12, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > Play with xacto. I'm interested in exploration, not winning. There's > nothing to win, and no one to win it. > > [Arlo] > You accused me of "stifling freedom of speech". I asked for evidence. This is > what I get. Typical. Maybe you should "explore" your need to resort to > dishonesty. > > [Marsha] > Watch again the section of the Oxford dvd, then argue with Mr. Pirsig. > > [Arlo] > I have nothing to argue with Pirsig about since NOTHING in my post IN > ANY WAY points towards "stifling free speech". > > You could apologize to me for making such a baseless and dishonest charge. > But I bet you won't. > > Or... > > Or you could actually answer my straightforward questions. > > Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo? > > (1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's > metaphysics. > > (2) 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". > > Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what value do > you think it has? > > Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of Quality" > as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's ideas, but that > it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's metaphysics"? > > Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into some > "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes no sense. > Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be wrong. In the > same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas. > > If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's ideas, do > you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for authoritative > legitimacy would disappear? > > In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "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"? > > Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you to say > instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM"? > > > 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
