Hello Dan, [Dan] I thought we were done with this SOM as intellect bullshit. Did you not get Horse's memo?
[Mary] Why don't you go Fxxx yourself? [Dan] Why am I kidding myself daily? Because you think SOM is intellect? That just isn't right and we've been over and over and over it. The notion has been debunked many times by many people, including Robert Pirsig. And at the start of the year, Horse sent a memo stating that any discussion of SOM as intellect would no longer be tolerated. Again, I repeat: Did you not get it? ... Just don't be stupid and we'll get along fine. [Mary] To repeat, I find your comments unhelpful and nasty without reason. Why don't you go Fxxx yourself? [Mary now] So, here we are, Dan. You are perfectly free to continue whining to anyone who will listen that you do not like my view of the MoQ. I respect your freedom to do that, but you do yourself a disservice by constantly running to the hall monitor to try to get my pass revoked. I do not agree that the subject has been debunked, dismissed, disproven, etc. You have yet to put forth one single argument that I find worthy of the debate - or worthy of YOU. I get this from you periodically and I usually just let it go by, but it's getting old now, so I will spell it out for you. Telling me Pirsig didn't say this or that, or that Horse doesn't like this or that is not impressive argumentation. I happen to know for a fact that I am not stupid, at least not stupid enough to change a position I have worked out over time just because you don't like it. Intimidation doesn't work for me and is beneath you. In the future, every time you try it you will be met with a blank, pitying stare. Grow up and fight like a girl. When you stand there and figuratively stamp your foot, all you've done is hurt your foot. Now I figure there are really two hidden arguments going on with you and not just one. First, you say you object to any discussion of the idea that the Intellectual Level of the MoQ is the set of Static Patterns of Value which value some 'absolute Truth', which is based on a reverence for the scientific method, at the expense of countervening values held at the Social Level. At least, I hope that is what you object to, since that is basically what I have been saying. It's always good to check, though. That's the short version, and though there are additional shades of meaning I could explain, this will get us started. I get that you don't agree with this, though I have never - and I mean NEVER - heard a rebuttal I find in any way convincing. This is disappointing to me. There are few things more interesting than a well-reasoned debate between well-meaning intellectual equals. By all means, I invite you to explain at length and in whatever detail you'd prefer, why I am so totally wrong that the subject must be BANNED from the MD. I am open to hearing it. But I wonder about hypothesis #1. You are far too emotional and illogical about this to be simply disagreeing with this theory. So, I figure the real problem is with something Bodvar Skutvik said a long time ago. You object to anyone questioning Pirsig's disagreement with this particular theory, even though I could point you to numerous places in ZMM where the beginnings of this idea were germinated. You want to say that Pirsig never, ever intended hypothesis #1, so it must be completely incorrect, and further, that anyone who thinks it imagined the entire thing out of their own head - which BTW, and according to your highly developed sense of celebrity (yes, that is intended as an insult) - makes the concept illegitimate on that point alone. This is absurd. I am just not into running around claiming to have invented a new metaphysics all by myself when I patently did not. My ideas came directly from reading Pirsig then thinking about what I read. This is what we all do. Are you trying to tell me that you read Pirsig in the same way a Fundamentalist reads his Bible? Are you telling me you never draw any independent conclusions or give any creative thought to what you have just read? Come on, man. Nothing in this world is black and white. What you do not want to see is that I am actually trying to give credit where credit is due. If Bodvar had a different spin on it, that is an argument you can take up with Bodvar. IT IS SIMPLY NOT MY ARGUMENT. If Pirsig wants to tell me I am incorrect, that's fine with me. I imagine Mr. Pirsig will still sleep well at night knowing I happen to interpret his work differently than he does, and if, as you seem to be wanting to interject as the gatekeeper to do for him, he should feel that he'd rather not accept the credit I offer him for the insights I have gained, then that's cool too. I am just trying to give credit where I see it due, be respectful of his efforts, be nice, and from my perspective, honor him with the credit for what I see in his work. If he does not want to accept that credit, then OK. This is getting boring even to me. Have I made myself clear at all? Nothing nefarious here. Nothing evil. No hidden self-aggrandizing motives. Quite the contrary, actually. So, with all cheerfulness, again, go f*** yourself, Dan, or talk to me. Either is fine. Best, Mary 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
