I can understand the frustration And there seems to be a bit more History behind the exchange between John, Ant and Dave that most of us are unaware of ...having said that.. Intellectualism, that project started By the ancient Greeks, is in serious trouble in current western culture. Like any problem, one must school Themselves in the history and context Of the difficulty in order to successfully come to an adequate solution. For example if a tech forum for motorcycles, let's say Harley Davidson cycles (they are particular Beasts in the engine world) was Populated mostly by people with little Or no background experience with Any engine or only car engines Or small engine repair experience. You have two certified HD techs That contribute. Understandably they are going to want to specialize with the HD tech Problems and are going to get frustrated when others comment Assert and argue from outside that Realm of understanding and insist They are making valuable contributions when they are simply Just muddling up any meaningful Practical conversation concerning The subject matter of the title of the forum. Harley Davidson motor cycles. I suspect it's even more frustrating When those HD techs are condemned for being HD techs on An HD tech forum, they are not real Mechanics because they specialize in HD makes and models. I don't see these tech getting up tight With the guy that has worked on HD Engines all his life and uses unorthodox methods for solving problems but I do see them getting pissy with the honda tech or the small Engine repair guy telling them they have no idea what they are talking about or even more with the car mechanic that hates motor cycles especially Harley's .
Just thinkin out loud Ron > On May 19, 2014, at 3:05 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 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
