Hear hear here!  



On Apr 17, 2012, at 10:33 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ah yes.
> 
> "There is but one Quality and Pirsig is its Prophet"
> 
> Where have I heard that before?
> 
> The scriptures have been written.  Now we have the apostles who do the
> interpretation.  They live high up in a tower cloaked with secrecy.
> They provide the prophesies, and tell us what to think.  All the while
> they turn the pages of that well worn book, looking for answers.
> 
> MoQ is rapidly becoming a dogmatic religion for some.  All we need is
> the alter; the inquisition is already in place.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Arlo said:
>> Right, we have two opposing "descriptions of Quality". We have Pirsig's 
>> description, and we have the other person's description. I'm not sure what 
>> is problematic here, it is perfectly coherent to say "Pirsig's MOQ and 
>> Arlo's MOQ vary on Point A".
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> Another good way to think about the difference is to ask two separate 
>> questions. 1) What does Pirsig mean? and 2) Is Pirsig right? The first 
>> question is about the best way to read Pirsig's books and the second 
>> question can't really be asked until the first one has been answered pretty 
>> well. This is just a matter of logical necessity because one cannot test, 
>> dispute, affirm or criticize an idea unless and until you know what that 
>> idea is. The problem is not that somebody might have a way to improve or 
>> refine Pirsig's work. As a matter of principle, we not only don't want to 
>> shut that down, it's a hopeful ideal to be aimed for.
>> The problem is with the particular people around here who think they have a 
>> better idea than Pirsig, who think they are masters of the second question 
>> when in fact they haven't even come close to settling the first question. 
>> What kind of person can believe they are on a par with Pirsig even though 
>> they have not done the work, have never written or published a book, and/or 
>> have no background in philosophy? Can you imagine such an attitude with 
>> respect to any other discipline? It's like vandalizing a Picasso with finger 
>> paint and then calling yourself an artistic genius. It's crazy. Its that 
>> what we mean when we say a person suffers from grandiose delusions. Isn't 
>> that attitude outrageously arrogant, at best, and more likely the symptom of 
>> mental illness? Normal people just don't talk like that.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
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

Reply via email to