Ron had said to Ian:
Notice Ian, Dave never said "agreement is bland". He said "you announced your
agreement with one bland statement." He specifically stated your statement was
bland. ....
dmb says:
This isn't a very important point but it does speak to the need for us all to
write and read carefully.
I did not mean to say that agreement is bland or that Ian's statement of
agreement was bland. The term "bland" was used to describe my own statement. I
was complaining that Ian responded to only one of my sentences and it was a
bland, introductory sentence in which I had said very little. It was just one
more way to complain about the lack of substance in Ian's response. Look....
I said to Ian, "Dude, you've announced your agreement with one bland statement
and totally ignored the rest. Why ask the question if you're just going to
ignore the answer? Don't you have anything to say about the quotes and
explanations I offered? If it's not what you're looking for, then what are you
asking? How did my answers fail to address your question?" And then a few lines
later, I made the same complaint again. I reposted the entire thing and said to
Ian, "here's the part you did not mention at all, which is all of my post
except for that one boring, introductory sentence. It would be nice if you read
it, thought about and responded to it with some coherent thoughts of your own."
That still has not happened. In fact, I can't recall any legitimate responses
from Ian or Marsha. It's weird. It's like they think you can just wave a flag
and say "hurrah" and that makes you a philosopher or a MOQ. Apparently, they
love philosophy except for that part where you have to think and speak and
otherwise grapple with ideas.
[Ron]:
Thanks for clarifying Dave. Reading it through with your intended meaning
certainly makes more sense, yet I still feel Ians
lack of substance in his response could be described as "bland" also, It seems
to me that they share a love for the deconstruction
of philosophy.
Take for example Marsha's recent posts concerning Bob's psychosis in which she
attempts to elevate and equate
catatonic expressions of schizophrenia including central nervous system disease
where hallucenations and delusional
behaviour are painted as somehow superior to intellectual excellence.
Marsha bemoans:
Are there still areas of inquiry and discovery, or should one blindly swallow
dmb's argument of "a volume of material", "the disease" and "the cure";
therefore he is right? Ian asked a question that has not been properly
addressed.
[Ron]
As far as I know, Dave HAS answered and explained the reasons for his beliefs
several times whereas both Ian and Marsha have yet
to respond with any explanation of their own save only to say that Daves
criticism is bogus, no explanation as to why it is bogus.
Talk about blindly swallowing !! that is EXACTLY what they ask us to do when
they refuse to explain. In fact, what I gather
about their whole arguement is it all surrounds a non-thinking acceptance of
ideas, a "blind swallowing" if you will.
Never mind that Robert Pirsig himself is quoted as supporting both DMB and Dr.
McWatt in their interpretations of his work,
nevermind the paragraphs apon paragraphs of quotes supported by well reasoned
explainations which renders Pirsigs MoQ
as a coherent whole concept.
Nahhhh
Believe the folks who ask you not to think..
The Church and the Government agree. Please dont think..thinking is bad.
..
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
