Mark Smith stated July 17th 2012:
Hi Ant,
Thank you for your "thoughtful" response. I had forgotten that you
offered me a copy of your Ph.D. I would like to read it. Please let
me know how to effect this transfer of knowledge.
Ant McWatt comments:
Well Mark, there seems to be quite a few people on MOQ Discuss who are keen on
you to read it so I better send you a copy. I'll do that - by e-mail - later.
--------cut---------
> Mark to Horse:
> 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?
> Ant MacWatt:
>
> Mark, this is the kind of disingenuous rhetoric of yours which I have been
> complaining about as all words are value laden.
> The closest we get to neutral words here is the signing off “Moq_Discuss
> mailing list” information at the end of each post. To dismiss a critique of
> one’s own writing by simply saying, for instance, “Not me guv, I only wrote
> the words that stated ‘you’re the biggest fucker in the world’ and it’s not
> my fault that you’ve taken this personally” beggars belief. No wonder Andre
> thinks you have a personality disorder!
Mark responds:
Ant, you do not know me. But if you did, you would know that I do not
go around blaming people. My comment concerning the creation of value
through the reading of what another has written stands.
Ant McWatt comments:
I've re-edited my original post to clarify matters here. It's not the issue of
"blame" but rather this issue of you thinking that your writing can be value
neutral that is of concern. No writing is value neutral. There will always be
a social and intellectual (if not artistic) context that a piece of writing
will be created from. In other words, a piece of writing just doesn't appear
in a vacuum; that is without a history of both the writer and the society that
he or she lives in. Think of Pirsig's expansion of Descarte's famous "cogito
ergo sum":
"The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I
am."
Mark Smith continued:
If anything it is a request to read what I write in a more favorable light. I
simply promote discussion on topics that I believe should be
investigated. Dismissal without investigation is simply bigoted.
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes, I'd agree with that last sentence. As the Buddha said about the
credibility of his beliefs : "see for yourself".
Mark Smith continued:
I do not think I have written that "you are the biggest fucker in the
world", although you may have written that to me on occasion.
Ant McWatt comments:
That relatively extreme phrase of emotionally tinged rhetoric was used to help
show that any given piece of writing is not value neutral.
Mark Smith continued:
You will find my posts to be opinions, and any insults are simply in
response to ones which I have received, for the purposes of waking one
up. Yes, even Zen uses that technique. The insults in this forum
that I receive seem to be based on insecurity.
Ant McWatt comments:
I think Zen is a little more than trading insults.
Mark Smith continued:
I am excited that you would find "little me" to be a threat. This
must mean that what I write has struck a nerve in your complacency
with MoQ. However, I am sure you realize that if you "knew it all",
you would probably move on to more rewarding subjects. Therefore, I
can take your negativity to what I write as justification that such
writing should be written (so to speak ). I am sure you welcome
debate in your current employment. The internet provides a broader
platform.
That you refuse to explain what it is that I write which you disagree
with still baffles me. You simply say "wrong, wrong, wrong" without
any justification. Such responses do not have much to do with
philosophy. Perhaps I am more intelligent than you. Who knows?
>
> Mark Smith continued:
>
> My point was that this gut reflex some people have to my posts is purely
> emotional.
>
>Ant McWatt stated:
> Interesting point here though, Mark. I think you’re actually talking about
> the Dynamic response that many contributors have here when they first read
> your posts. They can’t immediately put their finger on why they get this
> negative response about them but – for anyone who can be really bothered –
> you can carefully go through each paragraph of one of your typical posts and
> then intellectually work out why they are so “off-the-mark” (so to speak).
Mark commented:
Here is a good example of your claiming something without supporting
evidence. Am I simply to take your word for it? Will you take my
word if I state that you are "off the Ant" without further
explanation. Come on Ant, you can do better than that.
This dynamic response you speak of is so heavily laden with static
preconceptions, that the dynamic has completely disappeared. Surely
you can see that. As such this 'dynamic' response is completely
without freedom and simple a jump from one static to another.
Ant McWatt comments:
This Dynamic response I was talking about in regard to your posts is the same
sort of Dynamic response that Pirsig is talking about in his example of the hot
stove though, of course, there might be an element of negative or positive
static preconceptions if someone has already read some of your previous posts.
Mark Smith continued:
The point is to free oneself from the static. As you have stated
yourself, "beginner's mind". Treat each post as something new,
without all that baggage that one brings with one. Look beyond static
quality. Look beyond the words in Lila and try to see what the
intentions of them were. Words are just words, it is what the reader
does with them that matters.
Ant McWatt comments:
As I've said earlier, the reader is only half the story as regards a piece of
writing. Otherwise, Hemingway would have never bothered writing (to himself -
in order to help maintain the quality of his writing) in "A Moveable Feast":
"All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence you
know."
>Ant MacWatt previously:
> Again, personally, I think your posts are “getting there” (a philosophologist
> who had never read Pirsig’s books would probably wonder what the fuss is all
> about here) but compared to an average Dave Buchanan or Arlo Bensinger post
> they don’t help my understanding of the MOQ. And, unfortunately, for a
> beginner, your posts are going to be misleading. And that’s my real problem
> with them.
Mark:
It is interesting to know that you are no longer a "beginer". Have
you graduated in life to knowing about Quality? Do you know enough
about it to be able to say that your metaphysics of such is the best
possible? All I can say, is that this arrogance will only get you
stuck in some quicksand. Drop this pretence and move on to
betterness. We are all beginers. We are all investigating what
Quality has to do with our lives. It never ends! Let go of your
Ph.D. and move on.
Ant McWatt comments:
Mark, you are confusing/conflating Zen enlightenment with knowing about the MOQ
here. They are are different things though I think the latter can help with
the former.
Mark Smith continued:
It is Quality that is of import, not the manner in
which it is presented. Such presentation is degenerate and only leads
down a deep well. I am just trying to encourage you to move on. I
constantly come across people such as yourself who are waiting for
everyone to catch up with them.
Ant McWatt comments:
I bet you do!
Mark Smith continued:
They just keep waiting and wondering why others just do not catch on.
This is not Arete, this is just arrogance.
Ant McWatt comments:
If I thought that, I wouldn't bother posting here; let alone write a reply to
you.
Ant MacWatt continued:
> Unfortunately, because you tend to post so much, it would be quite a
> commitment to keep
> correcting them (especially on a line on line basis which they really need).
> If I was Horse, I’d consider limiting you to two posts (of five pages max) a
> week, say for six months, so this Discussion group can (hopefully) deal with
> them properly.
> Otherwise, and presuming you sincerely want to make a positive contribution
> regards the MOQ, maybe you should consider just writing essays for a while
> and post sections of them here occasionally (or, directly to people who’d
> help you,
> off-line) for comment and revision. The latter would also save Horse having
> to monitor
> you all the time. Anyway, for what it’s worth, that’s my take on this matter.
Mark:
Come on Ant! You do not have to read my posts. Some people get
something from them, and I have more discussions off-line than on.
Some with whom I correspond do not even post on the forum but get my
opinions through a Google search or something. Surely you must get
the same thing. Is this forum overwhelmed with too many posts?
Ant McWatt comments:
I think, on occasion, this Forum has been overwhelmed with second rate posts
which seem to be more about the person writing them than the MOQ.
Fortunately, this is not always the case.
Mark Smith continued:
Have you been in other philosophy forums where each subject has got
multiple threads going at once? There is no big master who tries to
control what is said, except maybe to state that insulting another is
not appropriate. Most of these forums are self patrolling so that any
insulting is simply shunned by the rest. You would not stand a chance
in such forums.
Ant McWatt comments:
Sadly, you're thinking about yourself here. Always interesting to hear your
kid psychology though.
Mark Smith continued:
What I see here is an attempt to "control the message". Like there is
some MoQ inquisition out there. The problem with this is that such
control destroys the message. Who is to say what a “positive
contribution” is?
Ant McWatt comments:
Horse?
Mark Smith continued:
Remember the quote which starts out ZAMM? You
really need to take that to heart since that sets the premise for
Quality. Quality is not some thing that can be described in one
strict way as you seem to wish. If you seek to “correct” an
expression of Quality, then good luck putting it into a box.
Ant McWatt comments:
At its best, I see this Discussion group as being a process of refining the
ideas in the MOQ. Those final comments in my last post were just ideas thrown
out for debate in an effort to improve matters. I do try to keep in mind the
often difficult and diplomatic job someone like Horse has in moderating a group
such as this one. Personally, I think some extent "controlling the message" is
indeed required so this Forum doesn't become full of nonsense and issues not
related to the MOQ. The trick is, of course, getting the right balance between
filtering out the "wheat from the chaff" though, as we can see with the example
of the brujo in LILA, this is usually easier said than done.
Mark Smith continued:
The metaphysics of Quality does not stand on its own...
Ant McWatt comments:
Unlike your writing about the MOQ which evidently does?
Mark Smith continued:
it requires Quality since that is what it is describing. Try using some words
and phrases
and concepts outside of what Pirsig has written, it is far from complete.
Any metaphysical representation must continue to move forward. The
metaphysics is simply a tool to introduce one to a reality composed of
Quality. The presentation is trivial at best. Don't get yourself
stuck in that mess of static quality. You are better than that! Move
within Quality, and, with that perspective, tell us what you think.
Ant McWatt comments:
The kid psychology continues!
Mark Smith continued:
We all know what Pirsig has said, it is what he doesn't say which is
more important, for that is the body of his work.
Ant McWatt comments:
This latter sentence is the kind of rhetoric which isn't really appreciated.
Who is this "We" here? If we all really know what Pirsig has said, what's the
point of having a Discussion group about his work? Moreover, to say that the
body of Pirsig's work is what he didn't say is just nonsense. No wonder Dan
asked you to "piss up someone's else's leg"!
Mark Smith continued:
Again, my posts are not meant to diminish what others say.
Ant McWatt comments:
No one said your posts were - which leads me to the suspicion that some of them
are indeed "meant to diminish what others say". In fact, if I hadn't first got
this impression from your posts firstly with Ian Glendinning and then
consequently with some of the other contributors here, I would have spent more
time dealing with the philosophical content of your posts.
Mark Smith continued:
In fact they are meant to expand on such statements through the principles of
discussion. If you truly believe what you say, then show us. I am on
your side, Quality is important. It's presentation needs to be
formatted in a more universal manner. It can become mainstream again
like it was in the 1970s. It is not just some clever twisted
metaphysical logic, it is much more than that. In fact, it is not the
metaphysics at all, just like a description of a mountain top is not
the mountain top. It is what one sees from the mountain top that is
important. That is what we want to hear from you. Now that you
understand Quality, what do you see?
Ant McWatt comments:
What did Pirsig about mountain tops... something on the lines that the only Zen
you'll find on a mountain top is the Zen that you take up there yourself. To
return to the middle of your post about beginners, I can't help anyone
"understand Quality". All I can help them with - on occasion - is their
understanding of the MOQ. As indeed people with a sincere interest on this
Discussion group help me.
Best wishes,
Ant
.
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
