[Platt to Mary] ... I 've always thought it close to the height of absurdity to declare that the man whose ideas we're here to discuss was so pigheaded he could never, under any circumstances, have second thoughts about his previously stated opinions.
[Arlo] Another shining example of the nothing-but-dishonest rhetoric the SIMians can only rely on. No one ever said anything about Pirsig being too inflexible to "change his mind". But when he himself says "there is nothing in the MOQ I know of to support [the SOL]" I take it he would be aware if his "original" opinions supported that theory. This inane trap of "interpretative legitimacy" has escalated into such absurdity, that like Adrie says below I can only shake my head in shame. To now claim that you speak better than Pirsig for the opinions of the pre-hospitalized Pirsig simply shows what ridiculous lows you all will follow to claim authoritative legitimacy, while the valid argument you could be having (why Bo's MOQ is better than Pirsig's MOQ) goes completely avoided. [Adrie] I can understand completely why ANT, or Pirsig are never here, this is a place of intellectual contamination, you people do not seek Quality, ..your constantly on the stake-out to shit on it, trying to derail any positive approach. [Arlo] Yes, I agree. This has no escalated into the worst I have ever seen things, the lowest quality "dialogue" one can imagine occurring. I've tried to nudge the SIMians back to the real valid ground they should be on, but instead the devolution continues. But really I am not surprised, Bo's theory has always been untenable at best, sophomoric, and full of more holes than swiss cheese. The only sustaining strength it has is in seeking "interpretative legitimacy", and the few who take him seriously do so out of emotional reasons, which is why their rhetoric is always dishonest and evasive and trapped in demanding they speak for Pirsig. [Adrie] I can understand that Bo is not understanding some things, but he doesn't look like an intellectual pervert to me, but you 2 losers?...your on the edge of criminal intentions. [Arlo] Like I said from the recent re-start of this nonsense, Bo's aim with his revised MOQ is setting up the foundation for claiming moral superiority for white, christian, western culture over the "social" peoples that are "everyone else". Platt is simply a regressive Victorian conservative whose only goal is to demonize "intellect" and "academics" (placeholders for "liberals", "progressives" and everyone who does not masturbate to the Limbaugh program). Marsha, despite her reliance on baseless accusations against me, I think has the best "heart" of the SIMians, as her adherence to the SOL is out of a passion for art and Zen. Mary, I had initially pegged to be more or less sympatico with Marsha, confusing the classic/romantic split of ZMM with trapping "intellect" in the "classical", "square" category. But I am growingly convinced there is something else fueling her SIMianity, and her use of such distortive rhetoric is leading me to see her far more in-line with Platt's anti-intellectual hatred than Marsha's artistic love. But again, I am personally biased, as one of those evil academics, towards Pirsig's desire to expand rationality, not condemn it. I see Pirsig's desire for a "root expansion" of rationality to be the solution for the problems he describes, and I think claiming one level is, by definition, entirely "blind" to values is an untenable and absurd position, one that meets only emotional needs (as mentioned above) and offers nothing plausible nor insightful to the dialogue. I mean, when your goal is to demonize "intellect" and those awful "intellectuals", do you really expect to hear a rational or valid argument? Jokes, pranks, distortions, evasions, dishonesty, yes. And this creates a genre conflict. One side is trying to talk "academically", the other side responds with the rhetoric of "talk-radio". One side is trying to "expand rationality", the other side is trying to "condemn rationality". And do you really expect rationality from the people who see rationality itself as the root cause of all evil in the world? So when I say, "academically", to Bo to take his argument to valid ground, to drop the insistence on interpretive legitimacy and argue why his ideas are better than Pirsig's, I am met only with "talk-radio" bombast such as accusations that I am "stifling free speech" or that I believe "there is only one right way to think". And now the focus on interpretative legitmacy has devolved to claims about who speaks for Pirsig's pre-hospitalized self? You are right, no wonder why Pirsig and Ant don't bother themselves with the list. I'm very close to thinking the same way. (And yes, I heard Platt, Mary and Bo clap their hands when I said that.) 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
