dmb, I can only repeat what I said to djh:
Marsha to djh: You didn't offer the context, so I don't know if the statements extracted from your search pertain to dmb or intellectual patterns, so let me put it like this: I don't care (to be concerned or solicitous; have thought or regard.) what dmb thinks. As I stated, dmb is not my moral or intellectual compass. I am _interested_ (curious) in everyone's opinion, but that does not mean that I must accept those opinion's. As for intellectual patterns, I am tremendously _interested_ in intellectual patterns, but feel no need to be attached to them. Marsha On Jun 15, 2013, at 12:36 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 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
