Drivel, bullshit, strawmen, yada yada .... doesn't even acknowledge the responses I gave to the Dan piece you're replying to. Ian. On 26 Apr 2013 00:37, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian said to Dan: > ... I just don't see anyone (other than dmb ironically ;-) "arguing in > favor of subjects experiencing objective reality". > > > Dan replied: > What? Really? Then I take it you haven't been reading any of the > discussions between David Harding and me, or between David Morey and me. > They are both pretty adamant about people experiencing static quality, > which if you look at it logically, breaks down to an independent reality > existing apart from the individual, or to a subject experiencing objective > reality. In doing so, they are elevating static quality as the central > reality in the MOQ. David Harding even admits to doing so. And if you > have been reading dmb's posts in the manner you suggest, then we must be > reading things differently. I have never in all the years here read him in > that way. > > > dmb says: > Thanks Dan, but I did make that mistake too. It takes one to know one, > right? And I was once where they are now. It was Paul Turner who opened my > eyes, in fact, and I remember thanking him for it in Liverpool while he and > I were talking to Pirsig. Pirsig said, basically, "yep, I noticed that". I > think Paul has the chops to go professional if he wants to. It took a while > to convince me and another guy named Roger patiently tried over and over to > show me that I was still thinking in SOM terms. He was really good at it > and he was as patient as a saint but, sadly, it never clicked in my mind > until after he left the forum. Oh boy, would we have a conversation now. > I'd begin by thanking him and apologizing for my thickness. My point? I > know what it's like to be Krimel or the other Davids (Harding and Morey). > Been there, done that. Maybe someday they'll thank you, Dan. Who knows? > Anything is possible. > > > Ian said: > I honestly still believe the whole long-running argument is simply a > SOMist language communication problem - that we ALL share since Aristotle - > particularly if we take the "critical" stance with those we are arguing > "against". Being more charitable I take a more "fluid integrative" view of > those I am debating "with". Critique against - is inherently SOMist. > > Dan replied: > What you seem to be saying is that if someone is on a low quality journey > we who know better shouldn't criticize them or attempt to point the way to > higher quality ideas. By being 'charitable' we basically don't care whether > or not these folk gain any knowledge about the MOQ. Is that right? I will > for the moment assume there are those here with a greater grasp of the MOQ > than others. Perhaps that isn't charitable but life is like that. There are > experts in certain fields and then there are laypeople who may possess > adequate knowledge and yet they haven't acquired the ability of an expert > who has spent tens of thousands of hours honing their skills. Are you > saying the experts here should just shut up and take a more fluid > integrative approach? > > > > dmb says: > Well, I look at Mr. Charitable's short paragraph and wonder if he strained > his arm patting himself on the back. His main point seems to be, "Ian is a > great guy," as opposed to those stingy Aristotelean SOMists who argue or > criticize. "Critique against - is inherently SOMist," he says > (self-servingly). How or why argument and criticism are "inherently SOMist" > is never explained or justified in any way. It's totally obvious, I think, > that Ian is just trying to make his inability to deal with arguments and > criticism into some kind of virtue. > > But the moment you stop to think about it, hopefully, you can see what a > load of bullshit it is. Who, in their right mind, thinks it wrong or > inappropriate to argue, debate or critique ideas in a philosophical > discussion group? What in the world could be MORE appropriate, given the > context, given the point and purpose of such discussions? When you stop to > think about it, Ian's assertion is outrageous, totally implausible, > face-saving, evasive bullshit. It's despicable and openly contemptuous of > intellectual. It makes me feel sick. Seriously. I have a negative physical > reaction to this kind of anti-intellectual drivel. I think Pirsig is quite > right to insist that truth, science, and intellect are NOT amoral. I mean, > it's not just stupidity but also a kind of sleaziness that makes me want to > take a shower. Yuk! I use the word "drivel" (like drool or slobber) for a > real reason, you know? It's like this disgusting stuff is uncontrollably > streaming out of his or her mouth. > > It takes a lot of restraint and discipline to be relatively civil in > criticizing this sort of thing. The unspoken voice of my inner demons makes > the Furies look like fairies. You don't want to know what I really think of > these people personally and it's not really not relevant anyway. But the > arguments, debates, critiques - words in a row - that's all we get in a > email-based discussion group. That's all that there can be. To rule that > out is just stupid beyond belief. Think about it. That is a totally idiotic > idea, maybe even the stupidest objection I ever heard. > > > > > > > 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
