Mark, > > Ron said: > Mark, I find it difficult to discern that we are talking about the same > thing. Your post attacks Pirsigs > criticism of scientific objectivism as a criticism of all science then tries > to paint that criticism as a straw > man and Pirsig as a foolish layman who really does not understand sceince. > This makes you come off like a pompus egotistical ass that has really not > took the time to > carefully read the material. This indeed raises the hackles of those of us > who have done the reading.
Mark: That you do not comprehend what I write does not mean we differ in viewpoint. I will be the judge as to whether we agree or not, since your posts are rather simplistic and two dimensional. I have yet to see something creative coming from your pen. Ron replies: I comprehend what you are saying I'm just not sure how it is applicable to my statements nor Johns questions regarding Pirsigs levels. The majority of your post was aimed at how Pirsig criticizes science, and you go on from that. Mark: In response to what you claim is "criticism" Pirsig I can state the following. Nobody is more indebted to Pirsig than I. You are a tag-along and while your posts are often interesting, they are pure Western drivel. I would hazard to say that I have read both ZAMM and Lila more times than you have. What is taken from such books are not the words, but rather what those words stimulate. It appears to me that they have not stimulated much in you since you keep referring to the books as gospel. What is in these books is only a small part of what is intended by Pirsig. There are way too many literalists in this forum. Ron: "What is in these books is only a small part of what is intended by Pirsig." Now THAT my freind is quite a load of bullshit. Mark, there is something to be said for textual evidence in regard to a more accurate understanding of the material, things like continuity and consistancy in meaning for example items your interpretion seems to lack so much one must wonder if you even read the books. Which I still doubt. Mark actually tries to explain what he means: .Pirsig rightly states that Scientism is way too powerful. Such a religion is based on "promissory materialism" (read what Popper or Eccles have to say on this to learn more). It is completely two dimensional. Realizing this opened the door for neo-Cartesian duality which separated the mind from the brain (read Eccles, who was a neuroscientist). This is of course also standard Zen teaching, there is a mind outside the brain. One can certainly criticize the displays made by science and say that they are insufficient, however the scientific method can also be used to explore the mystical (read Occult Science by Rudolf Steiner, free from Kindle). The scientific method is pattern recognition, pure and simple. As humans we have an enormous capacity for such pattern recognition (or creation if you will). Ron: A re-statement of the obvious, no one is argueing against this except for maybe the Zen assertion there is no mind/matter split in Zen except the illusion one attempts to overcome. Mark: If the fact that I live and breathe science makes me into an ass so far as you are concerned, then how about you provide me with your profession and I will say the same about you. Besides, from your posts your pomposity stands clear. Just who do you think you are? Are you God's gift to Pirsig? You are small minded and stuck. I pay you a compliment and say that I agree with you, and all you respond with is rubbish. Well, good luck with that. If you actually want to discuss philosophy, then I am all ears. Maybe you have something to say about the interrelationship between DQ and SQ. We can only hope. Try to relax and not be so reactive. Maybe you are a fireman in real life, but there is no fire here. There is nothing you need to stamp out. There is not even any smoke except maybe between your ears. Ron: Mark it has become quite clear to me that you really do not know what philosophy is much less string together a coherent line of thought regarding the subject matter. You sure are adept at bullshitting though. Exactly what are you basing your rhetorical arguements on? Any textual evidence is being a literalist to you and any hard scientific examples have yet to enter in to your explanations. All we keep getting is your "professional" opinion, What gives? if you indeed are a scientist I dread to think what you might be working on. Because you sure are lousy at explaining yourself. And it's not because you are sooo smart that the rest of us simply can not comprehend you. .. .. 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
