Fair enough John, but that was mainly about the Tim / Spam situation - yes?
My "roll-eyes" was specific to the Andre / Joe exchange - and incidentally was the most polite response I could be bothered to think of. The limits of whacky / playful / neurotic tolerance are simply pragmatic - you can only care so much, eventually someone has to wash some pots. Ian On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:06 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Ian, > > You recently complained about the amount of garbage in your inbox when you > subscribed to lilasquad. So I thought I'd cross-post my response over > there, to you here and now. I won't make it a habit, but it seemed > relevant to the very thing causing your eye-rolling below. > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Ian Glendinning > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> So Andre advises Joe to read ZMM & Lila, and Joe tells me Pirsig's >> metaphysics is defined by words defined by logic. >> >> "Roll-eyes" >> Ian >> On 9 Jan 2014 19:57, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Ian and All, >> > >> > In DQ/SQ metaphysics words express reality through logic, logos-logic. >> DQ >> > is indefinable, maintaining meaning through structure, metaphysics, >> words. >> > How can a meaning of words be indefinable? One size does not fit all! >> Keep >> > looking DQ/SQ until you feel satisfied! Individuality has meaning >> before 1 >> > moves. DQ/SQ hosts structure, reality. >> > >> > Joe >> > > There is no doubt that Tim is bright. Nor is there any doubt that he has > trouble being socially accepted - the signs are all around. And as people > who are interested in the life and work of Robert M. Pirsig, we all have a > certain amount of sympathy for intellectual social rejects. > > But no group can put up with an individual who is so out of whack that he > refuses to abide by common communication norms. TCP/IP wouldn't work if > acks were gibberish and likewise, human discourse requires a linguistic > common ground in order to function. If the gibberish shows promise of > evolving toward some system of understanding then we can be patient while > it gets worked out, but if it's just getting more and more insane and hard > to understand, then it's going in the wrong direction. And blurting out > gibberish has a way of putting off newcomers to the list - it obviates > growth which means it's violent towards any success. None of us are here > solely to please ourselves. We all want better communication and > understanding. Without that premise, that caring, we are doomed. > > It takes caring about others, to put your words and ideas into easily > understood format. When that care is not taken, it shows the opposite of > care - it shows disdain. > > Tim may hate his mother, hate his life, hate the world he lives in, but why > should we all be the brunt of his anger? We didn't cause his problems. > The fact that we can't solve them isn't because we don't care, it's just > the way reality works. "Work out YOUR OWN salvation in fear and > trembling." (Phil. 2:12) Don't come bugging us about it. > > > Maybe I'm wrong about all this. I'm willing to listen to reason. But > spamming my inbox with verbal temper tantrums just pisses me off. > > John > 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
