John, I for one am glad they didn't run you off. I enjoy our discussions even if we don't agree. I think it's good to examine these differences of opinion and helps to build a more solid foundation for the MOQ.
Thanks, Dan http://www.danglover.com On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:59 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> 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
