x said; but we most certainly can morally judge people based on their intellectual values.
Prove you can! or you're only talking intellectual dickshit! Kind regards Eddo 2013/8/27 X Acto <[email protected]> > > > 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 > 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
