Thanks for the moderation, Horse. Personally, I'll be more careful.
John On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All > > Just a quick note to say that no-one is being removed from MD for having > an opinion that is not part of the mainstream of thought on this list. > I also think folks need to lighten up a bit and be slightly less tense > when partaking of a conversation. > Remember that we're here to discuss RMP's work and as part of that > endeavour we should try and emulate the manner in which he created it > which, I believe, was in the spirit of good will and tolerance. > Anyone who was at the 2005 conference will remember what Pirsig said about > the idea of fairness - I think that this underlined how he would like to > see discussions relating to the MOQ proceeding. > Could anyone present in 2005 really imagine Bob ripping one of the > speakers a new one if they'd have said something a bit controversial - cos > I can't! > > Try to keep your blood pressure down and your heart rate low and steady - > skin up a fat one if you like and take a few deep drags before replying. > > Horse > > > > > On 19/05/2014 19:32, T-REXX Techs wrote: > >> 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 >> hat 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. >> > > -- > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > — Frank Zappa > > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > 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
