Phew!
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Dan Glover <daneglo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <ridgecoy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the moderation, Horse. >> >> Personally, I'll be more careful. >> >> John >> >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Horse <ho...@darkstar.uk.net> 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 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
