Hi Horse, Believe me, I fully understand what all those mentioned below is saying, and I do not have any problem with the philosophy aspects of it. In truth, I am saying the same things just in a different way. I have yet to be informed of a problem that I need to address, could you be more specific? Did you see mention of such a thing in Ant's post which referenced me (I have kept it below)? I sure did not. I am always willing to engage in discussion in any topic which others are having difficulty with. That such discussion is avoided and instead I read ramblings from the side of dissatisfaction, is really not in keeping with MoQ.
It would appear that the quality that you create out of my posts is lacking. This is not my fault, for what you are presented with is words on a screen. They are neutral. It is you and others that bring those words value. All I do is write them. So, you cannot rightly blame me, can you? Did you immediately understand everything about Lila when you first read it? Do you fully understand it now? Please, give me some credit that I know full well of what I present. It is not meant to dismiss what others say. If I ask Ant a question, then I fully expect a response, rather than a complaint. But he has not been forthcoming with philosophy. Please remember that we are speaking of Quality, and any metaphysics of such must also contain the qualities as presented by Pirsig. Arête is one of these. Why can't we all just post opinions in the most rational way, rather than just reverting to idle gossip about another? As it stands there seems to be a huge barrier to furthering MoQ which is brought about by this sense of "ownership" of MoQ. If Ant wants to present good reason why he should be listened to, then he should write accordingly. Simply stating that he has written a thesis on it years ago is insufficient. I was having a discussion with Ant about Quality at some point, but he simply "stepped out", and began insulting me. Is that the manner in which philosophy is discussed in Academia? My understanding is the philosophy goes through presentation, response, and rebuttal. Is that not what you want your forum to be about? Discussion does not always mean agreement. Just look through the progression of any metaphysics. Take a look at the verbal battles that James had with some other philosophers. I do not recall James calling a colleague phony, without presenting why. Let us try to be civil and refrain from trying to put others down. Our writing should remain intellectual and not get too emotional. We all have something to say, and I believe we should all be treated as equals. If I am attacked, I respond. What would you do? Why must you attack me? What have I done to you? I simply present my opinion on a discussion board. How about you attack someone else for a change? Regards, Mark On 7/16/12, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark > > Ant produces more and better rational input to MD in a single post than > you do in a month's worth of posts. > When you start producing input of the same quality, maybe Ant and others > will take you seriously - why not give it a try? > Your inability and/or lack of willingness to see or understand what Ant, > Dave, Dan, Arlo etc.are saying is a problem for you to address. > You should try to suppress that ego of yours, for short periods > initially (it's not necessary to be top dog to be taken seriously on MD) > and build on what these guys have said and are saying. > Once you've got the hang of that, who knows, you might even start to > make sense occasionally! > > Horse > > On 16/07/2012 07:41, 118 wrote: >> Ant McWatt "commented" on Mark's thoughtful opinion: >>> That's all sort of Ok in it's usual phoney kind of way especially as it >>> shows (unwittingly) that GOOD rhetoric probably always needs SOME >>> substance to it. You've got to remember that writers such as Hemingway - >>> or Pirsig for that matter - really believed in Artistic truth. Moreover, >>> there's very little, or any, unnecessary ornamentation in their writing. >>> This is analogous to Taoist art where only enough line is given on the >>> page to suggest a tree or a rock (or whatever it may be). Keep in mind >>> if you're writing rhetoric for other reasons (usually egotistical) >>> emulation is unlikely to convince; certainly not to a careful reader >>> anyway! >>> >>> Practice (as long as you can count to four) makes perfect as they say, >>> >>> Ant >>> >>> >>> P.s. In other words, short version, what Marks says on this Discussion >>> Board (as regards the MOQ at least) is, of course, usually a load of bull >>> but one day, he might get round to writing a half decent poem! > > > > 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
