Marsha had said:
Oh... It was helpful that you used the terms dmb's "beliefs" and "criticism" and not argument and rationality. Exactly! [Ron] They are beliefs and criticism, but they are based in Bob Pirsigs idea that we can not only judge other people but other cultures based on their value of intellectual quality. While as you say: ." I can accept that you have different value judgements than mine as a result of our different histories and current patterns of values." Is somewhat correct, we can not morally judge people on their biological, historical or cultural values, but we most certainly can morally judge people based on their intellectual values. .. On Aug 25, 2013, at 8:59 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 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
