Quick Ant note to Microsoft: Why don't you - one day - produce a simple e-mail program were the writer can just send in basic text to an internet discussion group without the formatting always being f**ked-up; instead of producing ever more unreliable, ever "so-clever" control freak type of software? (WINDOWS 8 - "the shopping channel operating system" - has got to be the ultimate in these regards).
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ant note to MOQ Discuss- Please find a refined version of my earlier post, sent to Discuss earlier this evening: IaN said to DMB, February 24th 2014: I can't understand your reason for an MoQ 101 statement of the bleedin' obvious? You even confirm that was your point. ...The biggest straw man conceivable, to even suggest any MD reader could think otherwise. Let's have something constructive. Ant comments: Firstly, to be slightly pedantic here it’s officially “ZMM”, “LILA” and MOQ”. That’s how they are on Pirsig’s computer keyboards. God knows how much time and money the poor guy went to alter his keyboards to incorporate these special “MOQ” keys... Anyway, using the incorrect form of the Pirsig’s acronyms (such as “MoQ”) starts us in the slippery road to imprecision which is exactly what you don’t want in a philosophical discussion. IMhO. DMB responded to IaN Feb 24th 2014: I can understand why you'd be upset, IaN, because you are definitely one of the anti-intellectuals that does "think otherwise". In many ways and on many occasions you have equated all kinds of careful thinking with SOM and even condemned the use of precise definitions as "a feature of SOMist thinking". For example,... Last August 19th IaN said to Arlo Bensinger: "Now, I'm not deliberately"equating" SOMism with objective definitions, but even in your re-statement includes ".... objective, scientistic, definitional logic.... is a feature of SOMist intellectual expression" - so clearly there is a strong relation/dependency between subjects / objects / relations having logically workable definitions, and SOMism." Ant McWatt comments: If IaN had used the term "syllogistic" instead of say, "scientistic", he would have made a good point here. (Anyway, he didn’t). It would also be better to use the word “impartial” instead of “objective” in this context. This is because the term “objective” - as anyone who has read Di Santo’s & Steele’s “Guidebook to ZMM” and/or my PhD text on the MOQ would realise - is such a “slippery” word (for a pragmatist philosopher at least). It is nearly an absolutely useless term certainly for philosophical discussion (and probably for scientific and "folk" use too). DMB charmingly continued Feb 24th: Because Arlo had complained about IaN's mistake to IaN: "The problem is, to go all the way back to the beginning, is that you want to equate 'coherence' with 'objectivist/scientistic/SOMist'(along with definitional and logical), and this is a misuse of the term 'SOM'." On August 15th, you seemed to suggest that coherence and valid arguments are some kind of "choking dogma": IaN then responded to Arlo: "In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns .... one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern." Ant McWatt comments: Oh dear. It looks like yet another MOQ Discuss contributor missed the point of Paul Turner’s carefully crafted “Two Contexts” paper (or being so smart themselves, couldn’t see the point of reading it): http://robertpirsig.org/Two%20Contexts%20of%20the%20MOQ.htm You know I wish people would start looking at this material by Paul Turner before mouthing off here and misleading other people. No wonder Dave Buchanan strongly suspects IaN GleNdinning’s CD collection contains only 138 various remixes of the Beach Boys “Pet Sounds” outtake: “Hang onto your Ego”! Dave keeps writing to me off-line; “Ant, you gotta write and tell Brian Wilson where those lost outtakes are”. You can’t let GleNdiNing keep hold of them for himself!” (BTW IaN, Dave does have a good point here. Capitol Records are still looking for many of these “lost” outtakes of “Hang onto your Ego” and they should really be returned to the Capitol Records building – found at the historic intersection of Hollywood & Vine in Hollywood - where they belong). Anyway, enough bitchin’ as my US cousins are oft to say on such heated occasions… DMB continued Feb 24th: Because Arlo had said to IaN: "Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns." Ant McWatt comments: Who?!!! Has Dr McWatt been smoking too much exotic substances recently?! Is he hallucinating?! (DMB mentioned THE “M “word at Discuss - you brave if reckless man, Buchanan. I could see the sweat come off Andre’s forehead as he read your last sentence! ;-) ). (My Bart Simpson moment of the day. Heh, heh, heh…) DMB continued Feb 24th: Arlo (or rather St. Arlo as he has the patience of a saint - judging by the idiots he's dealt with here in the past - hence my saintly nickname for him) continued to IaN: January 10th you seemed to be saying objectivity is equal to the "philosophical academe agenda" (whatever that is): "Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the LILA half… Ant comments: So ZMM isn’t intellectual then? Bloody hell, I hope Jesus is coming back soon because we’re going to need him… IaN had continued to Arlo: …clearly seem intent on subsuming whatever qualities MOQ has (had) into some objective subject-object dialectic. For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I respect their rights to do so – in an academic context. Ant comments: That’s awfully generous of you, Mr G, old chap. IaN G continued to Arlo: What I can't accept is this agenda subsuming the whole art & rhetoric of ZMM of MD, which only flourishes without the overly objective shackles." DMB responded Feb 24th: You have been spewing this kind of confused drivel for very long time. Ant comments: Well, to be absolutely honest here (!), I must admit the term “bullshit” did appear in my mind when I read IaN's last comment even before I read Dave’s similar response to his best-est Discuss buddy (as you can see above and below): Sleep tight now everyone! Dr McWatt P.S. Ian, despite the above criticism, many thanks for the reference to the Daniel Kahneman BBC TV documentary (about how we supposedly make decisions) by the way. It looks very good. I have recorded it though it can be also be seen anywhere around the world for the next five days at the BBC i-player webpage by anyone (unless, of course, you happen to live in those bastions of free speech and human rights, China and north Korea... the leading country for "cutting edge" haircuts): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wyr3c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DMB concluded (to Ian) Feb 24th: You even like to suggest that applying "academic" standards would kill the MOQ and that I am the murderer. Your anti-intellectualism is actually quite aggressive and personal etc, etc. ---------cut-------------- . 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
