Dan, thanks for being honest that you don't yet see what I'm on about. PS I'm a big fan of Paul too. Ian On 26 Apr 2013 05:22, "Dan Glover" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello everyone > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM, 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. > > > > Dan: > I remember Roger! Roger Parker. Great guy. And yes, Paul Turner added some > real value to the discussion group. I appreciated his interest in Lila's > Child too. > > I think we all go through a process when it comes to the MOQ. I know I did > as well. My big 'ah ha!' moment was when Robert Pirsig told me how Dynamic > Quality and experience become synonymous in the MOQ. Up until then, I saw > experience as static quality. Looking back, there were clues all along but > I pretty much ignored them. I recall that Roger telling me the same thing > during one of our discussions but for some reason it didn't jell for me. > > Anyway, thanks for being so forthcoming. This list could stand more of > that. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Dan: > I have no idea what Ian is on about. I tried asking questions but all I got > was nonsense for my trouble. > > > > > > 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? > > > Dan: > Good point. I am all for respect but come on. If someone writes the group > with a load of low quality ideas it only seems charitable to attempt to > point that out. Especially if we have been there and know what it takes to > overcome such viewpoints. > > > > 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. > > > > Dan: > Ha! Got to agree with you here. Sometimes I cannot even bring myself to > answer posts as they are so obviously flawed there is no chance of > redeeming any quality whatsoever. I remember going through that with Mark > Smit or whatever his name was. The scientist. Right. I got to the point > where I nearly unsubscribed to the discussion group I was that embarrassed > to be associated with such crap. > > > > > > It takes a lot of restraint and discipline to be relatively civil in > > criticizing this sort of thing. > > > Dan: > Absolutely. People accuse me of being a prick and an asshole but Lord if > they ever knew what I really thought. I do attempt to achieve at least a > veneer of civility here, up to a point. I haven't the patience of a Paul > Turner or a Roger Parker. I realize it is a failing on my part. But we all > have our failings. At least I don't kick my dog. Oh, wait a minute. I don't > have a dog to kick, otherwise I might. > > > > 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. > > > > Dan: > Well, I asked Ian what MORE he wants as he didn't make any suggestions. I > am all for keeping things respectful. But again, there comes a point where > I get very frustrated in having to repeat myself ad nauseum as if no one is > reading what I write. I do attempt to keep my criticisms positive but > again, I am sure even the Pope gets pissed off every once in a while. > > Thank you, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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
