Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Ant. It's intellectuals like you that make the academic world swing, for sure.
I think it'd be too much to expect every contribution to be good, but when we can't be good, be snide, right? Take care, John On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > Yes, very good... Probably the best post that I've ever read on MOQ > Discuss or, in fact, in relation to Pirsig. It's great to have such a > great talent on board at MOQ Discuss. As Clint Eastwood said once, "it > made my day" to read your incisive contribution here. > > Cheers, > > Ant > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Ant, > > > > It makes sense to me that we're all artists but it doesn't make sense to > me > > that everything we do is art. Everything we do, could be art, but it > > depends upon the kind of attention - or caring - we give to our > endeavours > > or acts. As usual I'm not interested in what you're saying or what > Pirsig> said but just my own ego and producing more nonsense here than a > very large> shed with a very large herd of cows in it with severe diarrhea. > > > > Couldn't it be said that art is an offshoot or development from caring? > If > > we care about the plumbing, we'll pay attention to what we're doing. But > > if we don't care too much, so we're obsessing over minutiae, we won't > > notice that ant has rewritten my post full of bull. So the guy who takes > up > > clubbing, so he can dance to his heart's content we call a "swinger" or a > > "piss artist". And I do think there is an invalid distinction to be made, > > even in "pollution space" (see above comment about cow sheds) since we > > can't care about everything, all the time. However, ignoring the above jc > > drivel, I suppose it's just unrealistic to expect that everyone here can > > make a positive contribution which would be good. > > > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I don't want to tread on Ian G's effort to get some responses he's happy > > with to his thread about post-intellectualism so consider this a new > > thread. > > > Just a quick couple of points about art, artist etc. What I now find > > helpful in this context when discussing the MOQ is Patrick Doorly's 2013 > > book "The Truth About Art". I'll keep reminding anyone that I meet who is > > interested in both fine art AND the MOQ is there is no other text better > > than Patrick's about this subject IMHO. In fact, even if you are > > interested in the MOQ alone, Patrick's exposition of it alone is > extremely > > sharp and in many ways (especially if you're looking for a more "factual" > > explanation) straight forward than Pirsig's two books. My review of > > Patrick's book can be found via this link: > > http://robertpirsig.org/Doorly.htm > > > ---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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
