Ron said:
...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,...
dmb says:
That's a pretty good analogy but I'd push it a little further because the
problem isn't just hostility toward the certified technicians but toward the
MOQ itself.
The substance of the complaints against John's assertions with respect to
intellectual values is that John can maintain his anti-intellectualism only by
ignoring the distinction between the problem (SOM) and the solution (MOQ). John
keeps treating intellectual values as they exist in the "problem space", as
Arlo put it, rather than the "solution space". In other words, John can
maintain his anti-intellectualism only by ignoring Pirsig's solution, namely
the root expansion of rationality, the art of rationality.
John can ignore the solution only by dismissing almost all of Lila and about
half of ZAMM. I suppose that's why he's so fond of characterizing the textual
evidence from these books as "parroting" or as academic assholery. Quotes from
the author cut against John's willful ignorance and so he finds a way to
dismiss and denigrate Pirsig's words without actually having to go through all
the trouble of responding fairly, honestly and intelligently.
He's always ready with lots of deflections and evasions and other weasel-like
ways of avoiding the criticism. But an actual philosophical discussion with
John? I don't see that ever happening. As far as I can tell, John has never
said anything worth hearing, and he certainly never wrote anything worthy of
the respect he so desperately craves and so frequently demands.
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
