John, > On May 25, 2014, at 3:56 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ron, > > >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 22, 2014, at 1:55 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> [JC to Ant] >>>> ... >>> >>> >>> I speak of "technique" in Ellul's French pronunciation and >>> meaning - not craftsmanship, but industrialized, imitative, copying. >> >> Ron: >> When I google technique I get: >> technique (tɛkˈniːk) or technic >> n >> 1. a practical method, skill, or art applied to a particular task >> 2. proficiency in a practical or mechanical skill >> 3. special facility; knack: he had the technique of turning everything to >> his advantage. >> [C19: from French, from technique (adj) technic] >> Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins >> Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 >> Where are you getting that meaning from? > > > > Jc: As I said, Jacques Ellul.- "The rationality of technique > enforces logical and mechanical organization through division of > labor, the setting of production standards, etc. And it creates an > artificial system which "eliminates or subordinates the natural > world." > > Ron: Neve heard of it , what were you saying about plain speech and common meaning? > >> >> John Carl: >>> To my mind, eradicating the distinction implies "intellect uber alles" A >>> sort of victory for technique, for classical intellect in owning all the >>> space. Perhaps I am wrong, and this is exactly what all you who proclaim >>> this "MOQ" of yours, SHOULD be, in which case I metaphorically spew you >>> from my lips and fight you to the end. >> >> Ron: >> Ahhhh I believe there we have it again >> You need something to fight against. >> Even if you have to create it yourself. > > > Jc: Hm. I don't know, maybe. When I feel I'm in a fight, whether I > want to be or not, I seek a rational object to struggle against. Even > if I have to create it myself. Which explains atheism in a nutshell. > Ron: I think what you are struggling against is that traditional value Of anti intellectualism. The one that Hates intellectualism no matter what the explanation. That blind faith that says thinking too much is evil and those that promote it are evil too. >> >> John Carl: >>> But I don't think Pirsig meant to eliminate art, or intellect, but to get >>> them back together and get along with one another. >> Ron : >> He is not eliminating anything but >> A misunderstanding. That misunderstanding being that art >> And intellect are distinct when they >> Essentially meant the same thing originally. > > > Jc: You mean back when the Greeks started it all. Ok, fine, but we > don't live in those simpler times, we live now and intellect has > evolved into something completely different than it meant then. And > intellectually guided society, IS here. All the great mathematicians > go to work on Wall Street, now. Haven't you heard? Back then they > did Philosophy. Now they get rich. > > It's not that getting rich is bad, per se, it's just that it's > different than philosophy, or art. > > Ron: But that's not the all if intellect, that's the all of greed. It's the all of intellect bereft of morals and ethics. >> >> By not offering any kind of explanation for your beliefs , >> You are not really advancing anything >> But your own personal gripes and justifying your presumed deficiencies >> In the effective communication to other human beings. > > > > Well... pardonez moi, mr landscaper :) My bushy demeanor is bothering > you and you wanna prune it back a bit. I get it. Let me put it this > way, I can only communicate one on one. I can't put my terms, into > somebody else's terms, when everybody has different terms. I'm sure > you know this, but James turned down the presidency of the American > Philosophy Association when it was founded, because he didn't think > you could do philosophy with multiple people from multiple situations > and different symbolic life-stories. > > Well he knew you could, it just takes years of work. And the MoQ adds, > there has to be a lot of caring. So if you don't care to communicate > with me, do like dmb and just skip over and ignore my foolish > ramblings. > > > Ron: Philosophy isn't for wimps John, get over it and use that plain speech we all understand. Or do you just talk out your ass? > > >> >> You are belittling and insulting and you sound more white than the whites >> you condemn..... Brother.. >> >> It's getting embarrassing . > > > Jc: An interesting word, embarrassing. I have to think what you > might mean by that.... > > A: every time I criticize dmb you cringe at the embarrassing nature > of the "dialogue". And then when ant jumps in to help, only it's all > vitriol and rancor without true explanation, it's embarrassing. > > B: You feel like a Father, to me, a mentor, somebody you have guided > and nurtured for years, and now I end up like this - embarrassing. > > C: You don't like what I say and how I bring a note of annoying > counter-argument to the MD and its as bad as Marsha was and that we > cant' come to some common understanding after all this time is just > embarrassing > > I vote for "C" > > Ron: > No, embarrassing in as you are really putting out a sloppy effort to explain > yourself. >> I guess an educated conversation is too much to ask from some one who >> dispises education intellect and common understanding between individuals. I'm dis appointed because I like you. I like your style and your energy but Your ability to put forth a well researched rational explanation really hurts your position. It's a shame. >> > Take it for what it's worth.
-Ron 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
