Hi Ant, I have recieved your thesis, thank you very much. Some comments/opinions below:
On 7/19/12, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 elaborates: My thinking is that personal value is created by the observer. As such, what I write can be value neutral to you, if you do not care one way or another. Another manner in which to interpret what one reads is negative value. This seems to be the case more often than not of my postings, which is fine, at least you have an opinion. To claim that I am somehow impacting how you valuate what I write, is disingenuous and flatly wrong. This kind of attitude is standard of the "vicimization" of humans as seems to be so ripe these days. There is no Arete in that form of attitude. It is much better to state that you have a low valuation of my writings due to your experience, than to blame me for that. With such a statement you can them go on to ezplain why if you wish. Simply trying to castrate meThis is what living in Quality means, it means (for one) having a sense of responsibility in one's perception of things. So far as I can tell, I have not physically touched you. That my concepts seem somehow misguided to you is simply you fighting against your own demons. This has nothing to do with Descarte. That is a completely different subject. As I have explained before, Descarte's summation is a typically Western paradigm which is at odds with MoQ. The MoQ view would be "I am, therefore I think". We create these ghosts of reason, they do not create us. All they create is a method by which to view ourselves. This is exactly why I say that we create DQ, it cannot create us. DQ is a concept. It does not exist outside of that. > > > 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. Hyperbole to prove a point is not very intelligent nor is it philsophical. It is simply political and cohersive. Please try not to resort to such techniques, they are silly. > > > 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 > 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
