Hmmm. Let's see now. With whom can I hope to have fraternal dialogue?
On the one hand we have John Carl in a thoughtful discourse with Dan:
>
> > Let me put it a slightly different way, Dan. remember when the art
> > teacher was so impressed by Phaedrus's "sculpture"? And yet Phdrs
> > didn't see why?
>
> Dan:
> Absolutely. Phaedrus didn't understand DeWeese. They were on different
> wave lengths. One was a rationalist and the other an artist.
>
>
Jc: And yet they were friends. That is, there wasn't any antipathy or
competition driving their relationship, but an interest in each other's
different way of thinking. I find it telling that the artist seemed to
"get" the intellectual more than the intellectual got the artist. At least
in this story.
> John:
> > The classic seems dynamic to the romantic, and vice versa. But
> > ultimately, the "realest" thing we can be sure of, is an aesthetic
> > good - something that "feels" right. It has to be logical, of
> > course. Anything illogical is bad thinking, but logic is like the
> > law - a schoolmaster, and does not itself own the goal of it's own
> > technique.
>
> Dan:
> Well, in that same section of ZMM, DeWeese asks Phaedrus to look at a
> light switch in his studio that's not working. He says how DeWeese has
> the look of an art patron asking the artist a question about a
> painting he doesn't understand.
>
>
Jc: DeWeese didn't understand electricity but that wasn't the bone of
contention in this episode - it was whether or not intuition can guide one
in seeking solutions. Phaedrus intuitively knew that the problem was in the
switch because he had some technical information about the way electricity
works, that DeWeese did not. This was frustrating to an artist who prides
himself on listening to his intuition alone.
> He contrasts DeWeese with the Sutherlands in that he is not
> anti-technology at all... he is simply so far removed from it he
> doesn't understand it. But he is always willing to learn more. DeWeese
> becomes frustrated when he doesn't understand how Phaedrus knew it was
> the switch, especially when told it was obvious.
>
> In that sense, DeWeese is neither a classic personality or a romantic.
> He is beyond that. He is an artist.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
We then have John Carl, justifiably indignant when abusively provoked:
When you say "about", do you mean parrotting? Because that's something
weird I've encountered with both you and dmb, that you think the MoQ is to
be memorized and staticized whereas I believe that metaphysics of Quality
implies potential for continuuing betterness. That is, the question of what
is good and not, can be asked ad inifitum about anything and everything,
including the MoQ itself. It's a process, not a thing. You guys seem to want
to carve it in stone and cause it to be worshipped. That's the problem with
humanity, they try and make a religion out of everything. Well not the MoQ,
fuck you very much. This is sacred ground and not to be contained in your
shelves and definitions, white man.
Then John wrote an apology letter to Robert Pirsig:
Dear Bob, I apologize for the abject state of your only academical
representation in the world today. Unfortunately you were right all along
and no person of Quality would want to have anything to do with that
instrument of asshole-ery - the academy. I feel somewhat to blame because I
really felt early on that if I'd just cared enough, I could have taken SOM
on in the academy myself but in the end I decided I'd rather keep my sanity
and have a family and a happy life. It was self-serving, in a way, but all
I can say was that it seemed the quality decision at the time. But when I
see what we've come to, I may have made a mistake. Sorry, Yours
prayerfully, John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
Finally, we have a representative response from David Buchanan:
John's self-serving bullshit is the kind of thing that gives rhetoric and
sophistry a bad name. Since he cannot or will not meet the most basic
standards of intellectual quality, his tactic is to attack those standards
and attack those who respect such standards. If he were sick, he'd portray
health as something to avoid like the plague. If he were penniless, he'd
condemn wealth and so it is with intellectual values and standards. John's
delusional and self-aggrandizing bullshit does not meet the most basic
standards of quality and so his foolish pride demands that he construe them
as something we should not want. According to John, precision and accuracy
is just "parrotting," remembering and understanding is just is just for
those who "think the MoQ is to be memorized and staticized" and those who
condemn contradictory nonsense "want to carve it in stone and cause it to be
worshipped" and "make a religion" out of it. Even definitions are a
violation "sacred ground", he says to the "white man". "Fuck you", John
says to the guy with the PhD and the guy with the Masters degree, and he
doesn't "want to have anything to do with that instrument of asshole-ery -
the academy". If he'd "cared enough," John claims, he "could have taken SOM
on in the academy" but that would be at odds with sanity, "a family and a
happy life". Yea, those grapes would would have been downright bitter.
They're poison. They are the forbidden fruit, the font of evil, the source
of madness, they'll destroy your family and your happiness. Intellectual
values are for parrots and higher education is for assholes.
But John is not anti-intellectual. No way. I can't imagine where anyone got
that idea. That's just crazy.
But seriously, I think John has no business in a forum like this. He not
only doesn't care about the point and purpose of this forum, he's openly
hostile to it and does nothing but get in the way of those who do care about
making sense and who do understand what Pirsig is saying. John is not a
critic or gadfly or rebel. He's just a narcissistic asshole, an ignorant and
childish blowhard. Apparently he thinks it's better to be hated than
ignored. As long as he gets attention, nothing else matters.
Disgusting. Depressing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
Dialogue, especially when it is written and lacks the directness and
subtlety of face-to face encounter, requires openness as well as
open-mindedness; vulnerability, as well as allowing for vulnerability in
others; empathy, charity, acceptance, and forgiveness; willingness to modify
one's perceptions of another; willingness to relate to another as a person,
not as a philosophical position. I have been able to do that with John Carl
and to establish a very cordial relationship in which exchange of ideas, as
well as mutual correction and refinement of views, can occur freely and
without rancor.
Similarly, Anthony and I have established a deeply friendly
and mutually respectful relationship which has been of great value to me
personally and in my philosophical endeavors.
But David, although I have respected your scholarship, your
intelligence, your insights, and most of all your friendship and high regard
for Dr. Pirisg, I have failed to find tolerance, empathy, compassion, or any
other basis for dialogue with you. Right thinking begins with right being,
and you are probably a good person. I'd like to believe that of you, but
you haven't let me see your quality in this forum. I am willing to be
wrong, and I hope to be, but I am not optimistic.
I join John Carl in submitting this post prayerfully.
John L. McConnell
Home: 407-857-2004
Cell: 321-438-6301
Email: [email protected]
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
