hi favedave, i'm in a mood, so be warned, ya pansy.
> > > dmb says: > > > Um, you're not getting the simple point here John. You are equating opposed > visions. John: ummm... WRong, dave. I'm not equating them, I'm positiing them in terms of each other. I'm VALUING each in light of the other... A good thing? Hello? dmb: > You are tone-deaf to the stark differences between these things. John: Ok, this is that part of the dialogue I lose ya. When you say "you", dave, you really mean yourself, not me. You mean that part of yourself which has everything neatly defined and codified, but it ain't me, babe. it ain't me. You are projecting parts of yourself upon an "other" and you're using Pirsig's metaphysical obviation of otherness (SOM, admittedly) to do so, and you are a bad, bad boy, and need to be spanked. You don't even comprehend "projection", because you just think everything rightfully and naturally revolves around you! dmb: > James and Pirsig are both offering a way to reconcile these opposed visions > and maybe that's what has you so confused. But your stance amounts to > equating the classic and the romantic or taking one as a version of the > other or something. I'm not sure exactly how you manage to blur these > distinctions, but it's pretty messed up. > > John: Ummm, yeah. quite a critique, there dave. "pretty messed up" Take another toke and get back to me, perfessor, when you got the time on your hands to actually deign to think. I'd be delighted. > > dmb said: > > As he saw it, Absolutism was just another name for orthodox theology. It > was the philosophy of buttoned-up prigs who insisted that feelings have > nothing to do with the truth. The block universe, he called it. The Absolute > itself, he thought, was a metaphysical fiction. It was the kind of > "trans-experiential entity" that his radically empirical method will not > admit. But more to the point... > John: "buttoned up prigs". Yeah. Tha's what I'm talkin' 'bout dave. right there, man. You just don't get it at all. Buttoned up prigs come in all kinds and shapes and colors and flavors, and aren't easily defined in terms of fashion and appearance. They are slaves to fashion, rather than analysers. They go with the academic flow, and they believe in the absolute of their own subjective opinion. But they don't believe in "subjective opinion"!!! so there is no metaphysical check upon their egotism. Houston?? Do you think perhaps we have a problem??? > > > dmb says: > > > Oh dude, you are so lost. First of all, "buttoned-up prigs" is not a > projection. It's James's phrase and I used it to refer to a James quote in > which he uses that description, a quote that I've posted here about ten > times. And if you think radical empiricism is a metaphysical entity, then > you surely do not know what the term means. > John: ok, dude, but thanks. I'm never lost. Wherever the cosmos deposits me, There I Am!... It's like majic or somethings. "Buttoned-up Prigs absolutely IS a projection on your part, dave, becuase your obviously are one. By this pattern that you view your world, you see everything around you. You're view is colored by you glasses, dave. And your glasses suck! Sorry, but it's always gripe, complain and exclude with you. You're never happy and I feel sorry for you man. dude. seriously. > > That's why I don't want to discuss with you, John. I think you don't really > know what you're talking about. Sorry. > > Ya know, dave. I know you don't. I get that completely. And so I deeply appreciate when you do anyway. As always, you've been fun. John 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
