Hi Ham, When some do not have any idea how to refute an argument, they will attack you personally. Has happened to me until they learned not to debate me. Happens to Marsha, john, and others who are serious about progressing MoQ. Comes with the territory.
Mark On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:28 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, Dan -- > > On Tuesday, 9/20/11 at 12:42 AM, "Dan Glover" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> > [snip] >> >> The reason no one complains is that it does no good. I tried >> discussing the MOQ with you on numerous occasions to no avail. >> Like Marsha (Lucy), you seem to want to engage me in a game >> but then you pull the football away. I think you should be happy >> you have others like Marsha and Mark who enjoy discussing >> nonsense and leave the rest of us alone. >> >> Dan (the not so innocent bystander) > > I don't know what game you think I'm playing or what football I pulled away > from you. I can assure you that I'm not into games and, if I failed to > continue a dialogue, it was probably because your response was to play > "Pirsig says". > > Dan, I appreciate that you are totally absorbed in the MoQ, philosophically > allied with the author, and resolved to hold the level of understanding to > its current status. I'm also aware that the MD is dedicated to Pirsig's > ideas. That said, MOQ-Discuss is described in the Charter as a "free-ranging > forum for the discussion of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality", and it is clear > that its members have wide-ranging and diverse views as to the meaning of the > author's pronouncements. > > In the interest of fuller understanding, is it not relevant to compare MOQ's > fundamental tenets with the concepts of other philosophies, both classical > and contemporary? If so, why should > you and Arlo want to discourage such discussion when it involves a different > interpretation of Value realization? As intellectuals, we all abhor rote > learning and dogmatic edicts issued by authorities in the name of Truth. With > no logical proofs or empirical validation at its disposal, Philosophy is a > dialectical discipline at best. That's why so many discussions here are of > the "circular" type that seem to go on interminably without producing a > satisfactory conclusion. > > On the other hand, a "free-ranging discussion" that is restricted to > unchallenged repetitions and echoes of the author's statements deprive > Pirsig's insights of fresh, new interpretations that can ensure against > stagnation and make his legacy more meaningful for future generations. > > While I don't deny an interest in promoting Essentialism, the arguments I've > presented in this forum are a sincere attempt to point out and/or clarify > undefined or unresolved metaphysical issues in Pirsig's philosophy. Since > Value factors significantly in both philosophies, it's only natural that the > solutions I offer will take an essentialist form. On the assumption that it > is not violating Pirsig's thesis to suggest alternative interpretations for > consideration, I regard those who call my suggestions irrelevant or > "nonsense" as disingenuous. Of course, should Horse disagree, I shall be > forced to follow the path taken by Bodvar, Platt and Tim. > > Until then, I remain your "inconvenient renegade", > Ham > > > 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
