dmb said to Marsha:
.., you are seemingly oblivious to the central objection. Your response does
not even mention it, ..We have Pirsig on record about this, you know? He
thinks that equating the intellectual level with SOM undermines the MOQ. That's
the objection you're not hearing, Marsha.
Marsha says:
I am hearing the objection. I understand the MoQ differently than you. Yea
me!!!
dmb says:
No, boo you. If you really heard the objection, you wouldn't be calling your
view "different". You'd be addressing the objection. And your view is not just
different from mine, it's different than the author's. The inventor of the MOQ
has explicitly condemned the equation you're using, but you're sticking to it
anyway. What's worse, this hopelessly immovable position has been constructed
out of a whole series of bad definitions misconceptions. "If my explanation is
inadequate", you said, "I will try to find better words". Again, this response
dismisses the main objection.
Instead of trying to find better words, why not deal with the objections?
Obviously, those objections will tell you specifically how and why people are
finding your explanations inadequate. Instead of defending your right to think
freely, which nobody is attacking, why don't you defend your ability to think
carefully and responsibly? If you address the objections that've already been
posted, you'd be directly confronting the inadequacies already spotted.
Responding with "not this, not that. Yea, me" just doesn't count as a response
at all. It's like you're at band practice every member of the band is telling
you, one by one, that you're out of tune. And your response is to defend your
right to sing "differently"? that response only shows that you're still not
hearing the objection.
Again from the top...
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
