Tell you what, Adrie, guys, I'm gonna get through this thing, because I want to, for my own reasons and development. I appreciate your thoughts and reading. I'll try and take the reader into consideration BUT, the CA series I'm doing mainly for my own reasons. And I've got enough off-list confirmation that I feel it's a valuable enterprise.
I'll throw you this bone, Adrie - I'll keep a balance. Instead of "not this, not that", I offer you "a little of this, a little of that". With plainly placed labels so you can avoid what you despise, and relish what you like. Fair enough? Fair enough. jc On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:54 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]>wrote: > Greetzz, Guys > > Been reading the annotations very extensively, at first , only with my own > insight and previous knowledge of the context > and general message of the work of Mr Pirsig, but then after that, been > reading them again,after i spoke with Dave of the > annotations , especially in regard of Pirsigs reflection on The Perrennial > philosophy(Huxley). > Dave placed the annotations in the same context as he is doing here,..and i > 'm able to see that Dan is doing the same > and on top of that , apparently Ant went the same path, trying to keep the > annotations in context. > > Yes well i agree, very important to keep them in context, and especially > this , the carefulll reader needs to read and to plow thrue > the black parts too, not only the red annotations,there is the need to keep > it all framed. > > But reading them, trying to explore them, i found no inconsistencies in > regard to the content/context of Mr Pirsigs Books > I found no inconsistencies in Dave's abstractions on this matter, nor on > his > abstraction on the Perrennial phil eye-wink of > Pirsig in the annotations. > > So i agree with Pirsig, Dan, Dave, Ant. > This point of view , however , is not in any way written on the purpose of > disagreeing with JC, i like your stuff , JC,..most of the time. > and i still remember a nice written posting , very crisp clear, neat, and > intelligent about the Monterey Bay area. > It took my interest for several reasons, it was superbly written,it had > content, was consistent and it showed you have something to say, without > the > nessecity digging in the annotations, you have stuff to say about your own > life's impressions, and i like to read it > i like to know this native things, how it is written, how it is > expierienced.........loved it all the way, good path. > > I like to know all this things Jc, you should write more of the good > stuff...not the lesser stuff. > What i meant to say JC, is this , throw of the backpack you are carrying, > will make you one of the best Squirrels around here. > Okay, and now i have to do some Quality-gardening, and thinking back during > that about this Monterey posting you made , > will improve or make my day, maybe i will read some more of you guys later > this evening. > > Adrie > > > > 2010/8/18 Dan Glover <[email protected]> > > > Hello everyone > > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:47 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > In reference to Pirsig's annotations, John said: > > > You gotta love the guy. Look at him dodge and weave! What a > complicated > > tour-de-force! ... Ok, so let's move on, with the realization that RMP is > > being very cagey for some reason. ...You gotta give credit to the guy, > he's > > tap-dancing up a storm here. ... See what I mean? If that's not some > fancy > > dancin', I dunno what is. ... Ok, at this point I'd like to pause and > ask a > > question. How? How does the MoQ take both sides? ...So how can one > take > > "both sides" from an MoQ perspective, hmmm??? > > > > > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > > > I think you have to remember that Pirsig comments were directed at > > Anthony McWatt, who was working on his Ph.D. thesis at the time. His > answers > > can be very succinct because by then Ant had already spent a lot of time > > getting to understand philosophy in general and the MOQ in particular. > It's > > my impression that it only seems like cagey tap-dancing to you because > you > > haven't done that kind of work. I'm saying your accusations of dodging > and > > weaving are without merit. > > > > > > Would take a huge dose of humility to accept the proposition that > Pirsig > > would know which ideas the MOQ can and cannot go along with? I don't > think > > that's too much to ask. > > > > Hi John and David > > > > I tend to agree with dmb here though that is not to slight any > > contributor who hasn't been around long enough to consider the context > > of certain RMP quotes such as the Copleston annotations. I seem to > > remember Anthony McWatt warning us of just this instance... of someone > > taking the annotations out of context. > > > > Thank you for reading, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > parser > 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
