> 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 d 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.
djh responds: All of that may well be true DMB. But on the whole I'd say I disagree with your implication that what is driving Marsha is *only* the social values of status and status 'envy'. In line with the principle of charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) it's only fair if we take into consideration *all* of what Marsha says. Marsha won't always (though does occasionally) ramble on about social status. In fact she will most often speak of the value of Dynamic Quality and occasionally intellectual quality. In her own words: "As for intellectual patterns, I am tremendously _interested_ in intellectual patterns, but feel no need to be attached to them." I think the main problem isn't that Marsha values social status above all else. But that she mistakes 'non-attachment' with thinking that static patterns are 'ever-changing'. As if this change of perspective will suddenly change the fact that static patterns are as their name implies - static. If you don't value the fact that static patterns are static then you don't value static patterns. And if you don't value static patterns then DQ doesn't result - chaos does. "Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos." It is this chaos which Marsha creates by her lack of value of the basic nature of static patterns which can be rightly called 'anti-intellectual' more than her occasional comments about social status. 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
