[Platt]
You call Bo's thinking a "dismal display" and that you will correct
his thinking with a "sound rhetorical and argumentatively valid platform."
In other words, "I, Arlo, will now instruct you, Bo, on the right way
to think."
No big deal. We've come to expect such pomposity from Arlo and his
fellow academics.
[Arlo]
I appreciate your need to launch yet another insubstantive
diversionary "argument" (like all those "free speech" Wurlitzers),
but it only evidences what I've been saying all along... the SOLists
are forever trapped in a need for interpretive legitimacy, despite
their calls for intellectual relativism, and this continues to prove just that.
There is no "right" way to think, but there are "better" ways to
frame one's argument. Bo's "argument" continues to rest on strawmen
and dishonest rhetoric, and I am merely pointing out that the valid
ground he could be standing on is right there beside him. Of course,
he (and you, it seems) seems trapped by the "THE", and that's the
source of all this hullaballoo.
I will point out that if you are seeking to call people out for
claiming "there is one way to think", Bo's recent posts provide
clear, simple and unquestionable examples of such egomania. And yet
you remain silent about that. Hmmm... one can only wonder why.
Indeed, you say to me "No big deal. We've come to expect such
pomposity from Arlo and his fellow academics", and yet the one most
evidencing "pomposity" (Bo) remains uncalled out.
In any event, I'll repost my questions to you, drop the idiotic
rhetoric and try to give a straightforward answer. Or is this going
to be the umpteenth time of "Diversionary Rhetoric 4, Substantive
Dialogue 0"? (Vegas odds? Rhetoric with a bullet!)
[Arlo adds]
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
