Horse,
As further evidence of the need for your intervention I call your attention
to the post below. As I suggested before I would actually enjoy addressing
dmb's posts in a manner befitting their content. Arguments like: "Krimel's
nonsense, lame excuses and bogus evasions, it's nonsense, nothing but
distraction, diversion, smoke screens and snark," deserve a different sort
of response than reason allows.
I trust you to give this matter serious attention but I think I deserve an
apology from dmb and he deserves a stern warning from you.
As I have said I will defer to your judgment and be very happy either way.
Krimel
Arlo said to Krimel:
Yikes. You're using the terminology, but you're completely in a different
ballpark than Pirsig. Maybe that's where you want to be, maybe that works
for you, and all power to you. But when you say things like this I think
there is really no common ground between what Pirsig is saying and what you
are saying; same words but completely different discourse.
dmb says:
Exactly. If the various participants insist on using their own private
definitions of the MOQ's key terms, then moq-discuss will continue to be a
tower of babel. And Krimel's nonsense only serves to add more noise and
confusion.
Krimel replied to Arlo:
I find it impossible to believe that Pirsig endorses the new MoQ
terminological shift you endorse. It utterly undoes everything he says.
dmb says:
Arlo not only understands the key terms and uses them properly, he provided
you with a clear explanation and the textual evidence to support his
explanation. The only thing that this "utterly undoes" is your misconception
and misunderstanding of the key terms. It utterly undoes your misreadings of
the MOQ. How many times have you dismissed, disregarded or deleted this
evidence so far? Have you faced up to it even once? No, so far you've only
produced lame excuses and bogus evasions.
Krimel said:
In fact I take his silence on this point as clear evidence that he either
does not read this forum or does not give a shit.
dmb says:
Back in 2005, he told me that he reads it every morning. I haven't asked him
about that lately but I'd guess he still does. He also said that he has to
actively resist the urge to chime in. If he did, he's afraid, his authority
would squelch the conversation. So he remains silent. I think Ant stays
pretty quiet for the same reason.
Krimel said:
Claiming that Pirsig endorses this shift is in effect saying that since he
had done nothing for the Tao in his first book, he wrote a second for the
sole purpose of killing it dead.
dmb says:
Kills it dead? What does that mean and how did you come to that conclusion?
I can't make any sense of that, probably because it's nonsense.
Arlo said:
This seems to be a point of fundamental disagreement you have with Pirsig,
maybe that's your point, and that's fine.
Krimel replied:
I quite agree there is a radical departure from Pirsig at stake here but you
are confused if you think I am the one to have made it.
dmb says:
It seems clear to me that you'd have to ignore, delete and dismiss the
textual evidence in order to maintain that view. I guess that's why you have
to keep evading the evidence from Pirsig's books. If you took an honest look
at the arguments and the evidence your position would immediately collapse
like a cheap card table. - Apologies to all the cheap card tables of the
world.
If you were playing fairly and honestly, you'd engage with the substance of
the matter, the arguments, the criticisms, and the evidence above all. I
just not seeing any of that from you. Quite the opposite.
I don't know how many times this has to been placed before your eyes
already, but apparently you are not seeing it.
Here is some solid evidence from our primary sources for the terminological
shift that you find so impossible to believe. Do you have any legitimate
reason for rejecting the clear and obvious parallels in conception on
display here? Nope, your replies have been nothing but distraction,
diversion, smoke screens and snark.
Pirsig said: "The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality."
Pirsig said: "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
intellectual abstractions."
Pirsig said: "Dynamic Quality, the source of all things, the
pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, always appears as 'spur of the
moment'."
Pirsig said: "This preintellectual reality is what Phædrus felt he had
properly identified as Quality."
And there are about a hundred more pieces of evidence that'll support this
use of terms. Compare that to the pieces of evidence you've provided for you
position. I believe that number is zero.
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
