dmb,
Baloney as thin as the ink on the page;
not even edible.
Marsha
> Re: [MD] 3 (or 4) kinds of wrong
> On Sep 24, 2013, at 5:15 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> dmb responds:
> Not that anyone asked, but it might be helpful to distinguish the three
> majors categories of wrongness in Marsha's posts, with a fourth category of
> relatively trivial errors like the misuse of terms, grammatical errors and
> logical contradictions. These trivial mistakes can appear in any of the three
> major categories.
>
> The first kind of wrongness involves claims and statements that are either
> unsupported by Pirsig's texts or, much worse, claims that contradict the
> textual evidence. An example would be the claim that each individual has
> their own truths and values because of each individual's life history. This
> is always a dispute about what the evidence does and does not support. It's
> about what can be justified on the basis of the evidence, how to properly
> interpret the evidence.
>
> The second kind of wrongness involves the consequences of these unsupported
> or contradicted claims. Using the same example, this is where an accusation
> like "Solipsistic subjectivism" is applied. This kind of critique is meant to
> explain the positions and stances entailed when these unsupported claims and
> statements are held as true. "Solipsistic subjectivism" is where you land if
> you think each individual has their own private truth. Such a view also fits
> Pirsig's definition of insanity. This second kind of wrongness is about the
> consequences of the first kind of wrongness.
>
> The third kind of wrongness concerns conversational behavior and includes
> things like evasion, baiting, dishonesty and all kind of uncooperative,
> inappropriate, and unreasonable reactions to the criticism of the other kinds
> of wrongness.
>
> It's like a triple-layer cake of wrongness with a frosting made of bad
> grammar and ill logic. It's all interconnected, even when it's not jumbled
> and confused. But having no basis for a claim is different from the negative
> consequences of a claim and those are both different from evading
> responsibility for making the claim.
>> Re: [MD] static patterns of value
>> On Sep 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> I am not going to make a defense against unfounded assumptions, or, for that
>> matter, projections, misrepresentations, sarcasm, irony, parody or insults.
>> I am looking for a clear definition of what dmb means by 'solipsistically
>> subjective,' and actual clearly stated reasons for thinking that I am
>> associated with the term, including actual quotes which give evidence for
>> his reasons and which includes the cited context (quotes): Post: subject -
>> date&time. And if he uses RMP quotes I want an explanation of how they
>> support my association with 'solipsistically subjective'. I am not going
>> to make a defense against what dmb' thinks I think, because most of the time
>> he seems to have no idea what I am thinking. In other words, I am not going
>> to deal with his fantasies. I want cited evidence so I may consider the
>> context in my answer. And I want direct quotes rather than his abbreviated
>> misrepresentations.
>>
>> Other than that, Ron, I do not understand your post.
>>
>>
>>
>> Marsha
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
