David Harding said:
Marsha will actively claim that she doesn't care about what folks (in
particular dmb) think... A quick search of the archives here for the phrase "I
don't care what you think." - except for three messages - all the rest
(fourteen) are from you (or repeats of something you've written) to someone
else. This lack of care for intellectual patterns of folks on here results in a
lack of change or improvement of your opinion. As said previously - it's
ironic, considering your definition of static patterns includes the term of
'ever-changing'.
dmb says to all MOQers:
I think it's much, much worse than anyone realizes. One could search the
archives of this forum to write an entire book about the stuff Marsha has said
to me for past eight years. The subject of that book would be that green-eyed
monster called envy. It began right after the conference in Liverpool in July
of 2005. As the old-timers around here might recall, Pirsig dubbed me his
"bodyguard" for defending his work in this forum, he told Paul Turner and
myself that we understood the MOQ better than he did and he said my conference
paper had gone "very deep". This is exactly when Marsha went sour.
In August of 2005, her reaction was to say exactly the opposite of Pirsig. Oh,
it's a good paper she said, "But your telling of the Orphic story was very
shallow. The story is much older and much deeper than your [sic] telling. The
story is about something lost. The important question is: What's been lost???"
Fast forward about 5 years, to November of 2010, a year after Pirsig had
praised Ant and I as the world's foremost experts on the MOQ as we prepared to
present his work at Oxford's MOQ Study Day, and you can see this green-eyed
monster is still saying the opposite.
[Marsha]Did RMP say that dmb is the only "philosopher" that understands the MoQ?
[Arlo]And so begins the carnival mirror. I'll play, for the moment. To answer,
no. I believe he named Ant as well.
[Marsha]And in general, is dmb any more a "philosopher" than you, or Mark, or
Dan, or John, or Ron?
[Arlo]Ah, methinks me sees the a reflection of the green devil in that mirror?
I believe, to get back to what was actually said and not this silly mirror,
that Pirsig believes DMB is one of two people who understand the MOQ the most,
and I think this is a repeat of what was said in the DVD. Along with DMB, I
think that list should most definitely be expanded to include David Granger,
and I personally would be tempted to make a nod here too to Matthew Crawford
(Shop Class as Soul Craft) even if his primary emphasis was ZMM. On my personal
short list, I'd also include Horse and Dan. Over the years I've found there
respective understanding of Pirisg to be unparalleled.
You know, of course, that this does not make you or me or Mark or Ron and John,
or Pierce, or Nietzsche, or Hegel or Kant, or Plato, or James, or Johnny Lydon
or Bugs Bunny "any less a philosopher". You know, of course, that Pirsig was
not naming who is and who is not "a philosopher". What he was doing was
pointing out who he thinks understands his ideas with the most accuracy.
[Marsha]If RMP said dmb has a firm grip of his ideas, does that mean absolutely
every aspects?
[Arlo]I'm going to break out of this silly carnival mirror again. The context
here was that you repeatedly called DMB's understanding of the MOQ "shallow",
it was not about whether he is right on every single detail. To that, I think I
would say that Pirsig obviously does not think DMB's understanding of his work
is "shallow", and I would think Pirsig would know.
[Marsha]Does that mean that no one but dmb has a firm grip on his ideas?
[Arlo]Back into the carnival mirror again. Okay then, no, he named Ant as well.
[Marsha]What is a psychological issue within the MoQ?
[Arlo]Per this context, when hostility and acrimony are a barrier to
intellectual patterns. In this case, after repeatedly doing nothing but
accusing DMB of having a "shallow" understanding of the MOQ, when he finally
breaks and presents a supportive word from Pirsig that shows the exact opposite
to be true, you STILL are doing nothing but acting out of hostility, now trying
to twist the context into whether DMB is right about every detail, about
whether other people are "philosophers", etc, all of which have nothing
whatsoever to do with what has been said, just ways you are looking for to keep
attacking DMB.
dmb continues in the present:
I don't expect everybody to be familiar with this long history. I want everyone
around here to realize how long this has been going on. Khoo and others have
complained about the way I treat Marsha, as if there is no good reason for me
to complain, to criticize, to lose my patience or to be rude. Given the
context, the last eight years, I think Marsha deserves ten times more rudeness
than she gets.
Sadly, the thing that gets lost in these petty games is the substance of the
matter. Instead of worrying about who's being naughty or nice, we should be
worrying about what's true and untrue of the MOQ. These social games disrupt
the point and purpose of this forum, which is supposed to be intellectual and
philosophical. Isn't clear by now that Marsha doesn't care about the latter,
has no respect for the latter and even feels contempt for philosophy? Nobody
ever thinks they're the bad guy, but jeez. If you doubt my story, go look for
yourself. There is a long record in the archives. I'm telling you Marsha has
been a stone in my shoe ever since she heard Pirsig say nice things about me.
She just cannot bear the thought, apparently. And this has nothing to do with
philosophy or the MOQ. Zip, zero, nada. It's just about Marsha's petty
jealousy.
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
