Q Sent by DiGi from my BlackBerry® Smartphone -----Original Message----- From: 118 <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected]: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:08:49 To: [email protected]<[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] kill all intellectual patterns
Hi Horse, Pirsig gives us examples of how this is discussed. There are many writings throughout the ages that does this. What do you think many discussions of God are. This is done through rhetoric. Please remember that no thing can be defined. What we work with are agreed on analogies. Certainly we can find agreement within Quality. A metaphysics of Quality is exactly of Quality. That is what it discusses. I hope this makes sense to you. But please ask questions if it does not. Cheers Mark On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > So Mark, please explain, rationally and logically, how one discusses > something which is no-thing and cannot be defined? > > On 28/11/2012 00:25, 118 wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I thought I would join this conversation since I assume it is open to the >> public. Before you recoil in terror, just listen to what I have to say. >> There >> is nothing illogical in what I write. I am interested in MoQ, not in some >> hate-fest. >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:53 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> [Horse] >> A good assessment Arlo. Perhaps it's about time that the members of this >> list take back the initiative to express what it is that Pirsig is saying. >> >> [Arlo] >> Agree. I've been somewhat preoccupied with other matters and, to be honest, >> my gumption level for dealing with that sort of trolling nonsense had >> pretty much been completed depleted. FWIW, I've been continuing to scan >> Northrop, albeit at a slower pace, but should be able to provide a digital >> copy of The Meeting of East and West to interested scholars in the near >> future. What would be nice is a collected effort to 'tag' the text to >> relevant or associated points made in Pirsig's writings. >> >> >> >> Mark: >> >> Thanks! I appreciate your effort. >> >> >> [Horse] >> It does need a concerted effort though - DMB is doing a good job countering >> the arguments of certain members but cannot do it on his own. >> >> >> >> Mark: >> >> Funny, I do not see any countering of my arguments except through the >> pasting of verse. I have dealt with Christians who aren’t as bad. >> >> >> [Arlo] >> The trouble is (as I think even DMB himself commented) DMB is trying to use >> an intellectual argument against an anti-intellectual position. The trolls >> are not interested in reason, or proof, or logic, or agreement with Pirsig, >> or anything of the sort. They are interested only in attacking the great >> evil of academia and rationality. Mark sees his incoherence not as a >> weakness, but as PROOF that he is operating "on a level above" DMB. The >> very fact that DMB makes citations to Pirsig is PROOF to Mark that his >> uncited, unsupported ramblings about Pirsig are superior. Marsha isn't >> interested in anything Pirsig says that contradicts the old SOLAQI >> nonsense, she is here beat on intellect-as-SOM and academics as SOM-stuck >> preachers. >> >> >> >> Mark: >> >> I am not sure what you mean by PROOF, Arlo, all I read are emotional >> rantings. What proof do you speak of? Please explain in a rational manner. >> Or is this simply another typical complaint cluster? >> >> >> >> My arguments are purely rational and logical. MoQ is a metaphysics of >> Quality. Therefore the subject matter of such metaphysics is Quality. DMB >> states that Quality cannot be discussed. I am not sure what metaphysics he >> is therefore discussing. >> >> >> >> I have shown dmb that the quotes he presents should not be interpreted in >> the way he does. He has assigned Quality to a simplistic model, and then >> goes on to make pronouncements of society and politics. Can you not see >> that this is misguided? Pirsig uses examples to explain Quality. These >> examples are not meant to be a dictum on the way SQ should be. DMB >> completely dismisses DQ, again claiming some mystical interpretation that >> is as far away from rationality as it gets. >> >> >> >> If we are to discuss Pirsig's model, the primary focus of such discussion >> should be in its interpretation of Quality. If members are unwilling to >> discuss this, then they have completely missed the point of Pirsig's >> books. This is a metaphysics OF Quality, not a metaphysics of SQ. Science >> already provides that. Science brings forth the four levels that are >> presented. Science is metaphysics of the objective which includes the >> intellect, the way in which it is dealt with in MoQ. What happened to DQ? >> >> >> >> DMB has completely objectified what MoQ teaches. He has classified >> everything in Aristotelian fashion. This is exactly what MoQ is against. >> I do not blame dmb since he must take an academic stance on these things. >> However, the Western academic approach is exactly what Phaedrus was >> fighting against. It is a pity that we have come full circle. >> >> >> >> Go ahead, refute what I say in a rational way. If you have nothing to say >> that is not complaining then just remain quiet and let some of us discuss >> MoQ in terms of its presentation of Quality. Do you even know what Quality >> is?! >> >> >> * Side note: it was funny, of course, when following a string of posts >> accusing DMB of weakness and inferiority for providing evidence, quotes and >> citations, to see Pirsig's comments on politics be summarily dismissed as >> weak and inferior because he doesn't provide evidence, quotes and >> citations. I guess the lesson is you only need citations when you challenge >> right-wing orthodoxies (and my guess is they would be dismissed anyway as >> 'biased'), any other time citations just prove stupidity. >> >> >> >> Mark: >> >> Lila was not meant to be a treatise on politics or society. At the >> beginning of ZAMM he explained that such book was not about Zen, or about >> Motorcycle maintenance. He should have made the same disclaimer at the >> beginning of Lila. Pirsig does not have the background to make educated >> statements about these things. He himself would say as much. He uses >> these things as analogies to present Quality, and how the paradigm of >> Quality can bring an alternate view to such things. The question should >> be, is he effective in presenting Quality. Obviously he was not for many >> in this forum, since they do not see the importance of Quality in MoQ. >> >> >> [Horse] >> I have said that this list should be expressly about Pirsig's MoQ and not a >> mish-mash of poorly thought out 'in my opinion' nonsense. Pirsig is the >> best place to go for evidence of how the MoQ works and quotes supporting a >> position. >> >> >> >> Mark: >> >> Horse, I completely agree with you. Why don't you present something about >> MoQ rather than arbitrarily condemn those of us who do because we do not >> agree with another. What is a discussion without music? You are playing a >> marching band. Zappa would be disappointed. Try a little jazz. >> >> >> [Arlo] >> I, in no way, meant to imply fault on your end, Horse. In fact, if >> anything, I include your voice to the voices that have been drown out by >> the trolling. I do understand, of course, that its never just that, we all >> have other lives and other endeavors, but its sad that the stronger voices >> here (apart from DMB) are no longer as active. >> >> Mark: >> >> Ah yes, the complaint by the norm. Just remember, Phaedrus was a wolf, not >> some academic philosopher trying to fit everything into Western thought. >> Stronger voices? Is this the marching band you are referring to? Why are >> there not more people on this forum seeing as how popular ZAMM was? This >> is because of such voices who have relegated ZAMM (Pirisg's autobiography) >> to some trivial post. Everything you need to know is in ZAMM. Lila has >> simply led most astray. >> >> >> >> [Horse] >> Take back the list now or risk losing it to wooly-headed garbage. It's your >> choice. >> >> >> >> Mark: >> >> Yes, I agree. Let's discuss MoQ, not some political ideal. Let us discuss >> Quality in metaphysical terms. How about you Horse? Have you got any >> contributions? Do you think MoQ is a good presentation of Quality? If so, >> Why? >> >> >> [Arlo] >> Agree. I admit to my own part in letting the nonsense get in the way. >> >> >> >> Mark: >> >> If you find it to be nonsense, then provide a rational explanation as to >> why. All this complaining and victimization that I read in the forum has >> got to stop. Provide an argument against what I present. Stop whining, >> this is the real world, not some academy award presentation. >> >> >> >> Best regards and I look forward to a coherent argument. >> >> >> >> Mark, another wolf. >> >> >> 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 > > -- > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > — Frank Zappa > > 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
