Ant, What do you see as the point of this discussion group? Is it to have intellectual discussion or something else? If so, what is it?
Full disclosure - I think the point of this discussion group is to *intellectually* discuss the Metaphysics of Quality. If someone creates a pattern of actively working against that point, then I think the discussion group as a whole should firstly try and show that person an alternative (which we have been doing for a long time) and if that person has shown no interest in this alternative - then the group has a right to remove that person who poses a threat to its values. To be clear if Marsha was a good mystic like Katagiri Roshi say, and she clearly knew what was intellectual and what wasn't - I would have no issue with that. If Marsha merely wanted to offer quotes of other mystics(which is what you've claim she does), then I'd have no issue with that either. In fact, I'd value both those things. But sadly, Marsha does neither of those things. As dmb says; Marsha will not merely quote other mystics but also offer her own views which continually muddy the clear distinction between what is intellectual and Mystical by confusing SOM with certain intellectual values such as clarity, precision and the assumption that things exist before we experience them. Case in point: "[djh] Can you ever see the value of thinking about static quality and making the assumption that things exist before we think about them? [Marsha] There might be good reasons in science to pretend [make an assumption]." Like you, I'm all for diversity on this forum. And I'm hesitant to call for Marsha's removal, but I'm with dmb in that it's high time you spoke out in support of intellectual values and spoke out against anyone expounding anything against those values [aka Marsha]. Ironically, you've done that with me already (when I was speaking with Marsha) how bout you start talking with Marsha like this.. "David, I think you need both the Two Contexts that Paul was talking about to fully understand and to fully apply the MOQ. ...If you confine yourself to Context 1 then you going to be paralysed into no-action or some sort of relativism where the static patterns are considered to have equal value/no-value; if you confine yourself just to Context 2, then you’re going to start making the error that the MOQ is stating something absolute about the world. The MOQ is just a “working postulation” and I think this what the Two Contexts is designed to help illustrate." djh On 02/08/2013, at 9:15 AM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave, > > You're lucky to have caught me. I was just going out for my local Klan's > Anti-Muslim Women week. One of my favourite times of the year! We > especially despise these culturally backward people who hide behind full > length dress. Not in the West, man, no Siree, are we accepting such backward > behaviour! > > Anyway, as I have a spare ten minutes while I just put my head dress on... > > ---------------------------------------- > Dave Buchanan posted August 1st 2013: > > Marsha said to Ant McWatt: >> >> I can accept that dmb has different value judgements than mine as a result >> of our different histories and current patterns of values. >> >> >> >> Ant Mcwatt said to his dear Marsha: >> >> What you have said is true but in this context of a philosophical discussion >> group if you just produce the occasional mystical quote then you won't be >> making the most of your knowledge about Pirsig's work or the Discussion >> group. ...Though you have provided some good links and references over the >> years, I can't remember reading one of your numerous posts and thinking >> "Hey, that's a good way of putting of that!". ...the production of quotes is >> very static. In fact, it could be considered a form of trolling. >> ...Unfortunately, you can't be removed from this discussion group for being >> boring though - in future - I do hope to hear more original thoughts from >> the "real" Marsha than these mystical quotes. I know you're relatively very >> well read so you could do a lot more to help people new to the MOQ (and >> Pirsig's work in general). >> >> >> > > DMB said: > > It seems that you're trying to help, Doc, but you're very much missing the > point. > > Doc McWatt says: > > The point is on the top of my head dress, Boy; look up and you'll see it > clearly! As for missing it, I don't miss my point, I just miss my gimp suit. > Sadly, my black boyfriend took it with him in 1972 when he left me. That's > why I joined the klan, Dave, I miss my gimp suit. (Please say a prayer for > me and ask Baby Jesus to find the Doc's gimp suit. The Doc doesn't mean to > be racist, he just wants his gimp suit back). > > DMB said: > > I dare say that you might even be making it worse. As you've construed it, > Marsha's deployment of naked quotes is boring, unoriginal, and represents a > lost opportunity to helpfully contribute her knowledge of the MOQ. > > Doc McWatt says: > > Naked quotes... Yeah, I know not everyone (and especially those of a > sensitive gentle nature) can handle those naked quotes... > > DMB continued: > > The problem is that Marsha's quotes are irrelevant - absurd non-sequitors - > and she uses them to evade the substance of the matter. The only honest and > fair way to deal with this situation is to deal with the substance of the > matter. This is exactly what Marsha refuses to do and you're not doing it > either. How many times do I have to point out that this is a philosophical > discussion group? How about if we discuss philosophical ideas and their > relative merits? If we would only do what we're supposed to be doing, > everyone (including you, I hope) would clearly see that Marsha has nothing to > contribute. (I have asked you to examine her "original" thoughts and please > explain how they are anything other than unintelligible gibberish. Except for > Arlo, it seems that nobody has addressed the substance of these complaints.) > > Doc McWatt says: > > Funny you should say that, Mr DMB. I was just reading St. Paul Turner's > letter to the "UnDivine Marsha" of June 17th and it was "Spot the Dummie" > time! Was it St. Paul or the UnDivine Marsha? > > Let's all go back and see: > > Dan's bird: > >> The "Dummies Guide" reference is cute. - I've read a number of different >> texts by Nagarjuna, and there should be nothing odd about my accepting a >> static pattern as a mirage. I'm sure you probably read Jay Garfield's >> translation/interpretation of the MMK. While he's not the Buddha or >> Nagarjuna, he might illuminate the use of mirage... > > > St. Paul: > > I'm glad you saw the humour there but I've stopped laughing and now I feel > like the Dummie because Nagarjuna is indeed translated as using "mirage" in > MMK. I do like Jay Garfield. I've only read a couple of essays and his > analysis of the MMK. I haven't read the book you quote from below. > > > Who's looking the Dummie now? (Remember, I haven't had my gimp suit on for 41 > years so it ain't me). > > > DMB continued: > > What reason do we have to believe that Marsha understands anything about the > MOQ? And surely there is a difference between reading a lot and reading well. > As far as I can tell, she has never understood anything I've ever said, never > got the point of anything and never given a proper answer to any criticism. > > Doc McWatt says: > > She's teasing you Boy! Don't fall for it. (This is the type of thing that > can happen when someone doesn't have a gimp suit. They have to make-up their > own different type of... "private entertainment"). > > > DMB continued: > > This is irresponsible and dishonest. It's disruptive. It's produces nothing > but hostility, confusion and distraction. But as you've construed it, Marsha > has only hidden her secret intellectuality by using the wrong style! > Seriously, what reason is there to think she understands the MOQ? I don't see > any evidence of that. I believe that when I see it. > > Doc McWatt says: > > That makes two of us though not many people can say they've made St. Paul > feel a Dummie at Discuss. However, if Dan's girl can do that in the context > of Jay Garfield (one cool cat) then who knows regarding Captain Bob's MOQ! > > > ---cut--- > > > DMB concluded: > > Gender is a totally bogus reason to retain an incompetent troll and I hardly > think Connecticut counts as a different culture. C'mon, Doc. Now you're being > silly. > > The MOQ's moral codes say that social and biological values should not be > allowed to interfere with intellectual progress, right? What do you suppose > that means with respect to this discussion group? I think it means that one's > merit is measured by basic intellectual standards, at least. And we hope that > is done artfully. But simply refusing to do it at all? I think that's > obviously not acceptable. > > > Doc McWatt ends on a high (no smoking now kids!): > > A quoteless Dan's girl will either raise her game or drop like a stone. > > I've > seen the books, the Art, the cool cats. Me and the cats even had to compete > for the bed. Cary Grant had a big cat problem in Connecticut too but unlike > me he didn't have my Little Richard CD collection with him > (way too cool for the average cat!). > > Peace and love and all that, > > The Doc > > > . > 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
