Mark asked dmb:
Why do you think that Pirsig differentiates between DQ and sq? Please try to
answer this without any quotes, but with creative thoughts of your own.
dmb says:
You want me to explain Pirsig's thinking without making any reference to
Pirsig? Why? Because it's the least effective and least authoritative and least
credible way to explain these things? Yea, I wouldn't want to use Pirsig
quotes, cause then I might risk saying something that's true or accurate. God
forbid. We wouldn't want any of that to break out around here. Might be
contagious.
Seriously, why in the world would you want to exclude the very text we are here
to discuss! AHHHHHH!
These people are making crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I posted a big thing just the other day, actually, explaining how that first
distinction was born. You wouldn't like it, though. It was full of words and
concepts and quotes from Pirsig's book.
Free yourself from words by writing? Explain some thoughts without mentioning
them? And you're not kidding?
Can I get please get a witness? How is it unfair or inaccurate to call this
incoherent drivel? It's like a scientific fact, no?
Mark said:
Yes, my posts are meant for those who wish for a way out of the static world of
thought. The idea is to free oneself from words.
> >
> > dmb says:
> > This is another good example. First you have the delusional grandiosity
> > wherein the poster claims to transcend the normal limits of thoughts and
> > words and then you have the logical incoherence of the claim. Reading or
> > writing to free yourself from words is like driving your car around to free
> > yourself from fuel consumption. It is a humorously conspicuous performative
> > contradiction. In other words, it's so stupid that it's funny.
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
