Ant, On 7/7/14, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > DMB concluded in his last post: > > "The art of thinking has always been about examining ourselves, our > beliefs and assumptions. It's predicated on a willingness to question > the values of one's own culture, to question the gods. But some merely > use the quips and quotes that seem to validate them. I don't what that's > called, but it ain't the love of wisdom and I can only see the most > common and crude value in that; ego" > > Ant McWatt comments: > > I fully agree with Dave here. I would just add that some of these latter > ego driven people primarily just like the attention.
Jc: Who doesn't like attention? Who doesn't appreciate appreciation? It seems facile to make the love of acclimation a deciding fault, since we all share it to a degree. Except for misanthropes, of course and I have to admit I fall more into that category than any other. People suck. If you don't realize that, you haven't been paying attention. People suck and life is made more difficult by that fact, than it really needs to be. Ant: For instance, though > Marsha and John Carl are both members of LS (confusingly and unoriginally > called LilaSquad; the old name for this discussion group), see how many > posts they have uploaded there in the last six months since Marsha's ban on > this Discussion group at the New Year. The sound of silence over at LS > recently (and this is way before Platt's recent death too) is deafening. > Jc: You are wrong on so many counts, Ant, I don't know where to start. First off, and most glaring, Marsha isn't part of LS, has never posted a single thing. Second, it's actually pretty active. I get a lot more in the LS box than the MD. But... it's most Bo saying the same old thing or Tim going all incoherent. Sometimes Tuk adds a bit and then I rejoice - Tuukka Virtapenko is a very bright and interesting persona. But I gotta say, Dr. Anthony, your statement which is so cocky and sure - and yet so wrong, makes me question what else you assert that is pure B.S. Ant: > Having said that, I don't think John Carl or Marsha are evil people. Jc: Thanks. And duh. Ant: >Far > from it; they are both relatively intelligent, kind people but there's > something lacking in their mental capacity somewhere. Jc: I'm not really able to speak for Marsha. I doubt anybody is. But perhaps its this attitude that blows a raspberry in the face of authority. I'd say we do share that. Ant: >Unfortunately, due to > the heritage of Pirsig's own life as supposedly someone insane (which he > wasn't btw - certainly not from an MOQ perspective), his work does attract a > fair share of nuts, stalkers and other people of dubious character. And, of > course, unfortunately some of these people end up here (as well as Pirsig's > front lawn etc.). I think Horse is very tolerant of these people (which is > a credit to him) but, unfortunately, they often get in the way of the > intellectual discussions here which is what this Discussion group is meant > to be all about. > Jc: I can't stand hypocrisy and insincerity. I've made very intellectual arguments and backed them with academic authority which outshines yours or dmb's. Carbondale is pretty much THEE place for American Pragmatic authority. I've hinted at the direction my thesis would take and all I get is slander and insult. The only arguments presented to me have been "but Pirsig sez". If I have to explain one more time why that's not an intellectually valid argument, I'll scream. Ant: > Once these "nuts" show their hand on this Discussion group so to speak (as > John Carl has recently), I just now have the policy of ignoring them or, if > they are persistent in their behaviour, contacting the appropriate > authorities to deal with them. But, remember this, while there is > disharmony, ignorance and injustice on this world of ours (which, in the > end, is causing this mental illness), they will - sadly - be always be with > us - in some form or another. > > Best wishes, > > Ant > Best wishes to whom? Jc > > ---------------------------------------- > > Dave Buchanan posted July 6th 2014: > > Andre said to dmb: > > ... John's confusion (or rather ineptitude) with some of the core, > fundamental MOQ insights is startling. ...I suggested he is following Bodvar > and Marsha, which he denies of course. But to John intellect IS SOM (a la > Bodvar) because he 'sees' and 'hears' it all around him. Similarly he > retorts that his position is correct because his 'experience' tells him so > (a la Marsha). Yet despite the corrections with presented evidence he > remains ignorant or at least hopelessly confused. He's not arguing against > Pirsig, he's arguing within his self created problem space. He's arguing > with himself. It's a soliloquize really (a la Marsha). > > > dmb says: > Yes, they all seem to share in a common misconception wherein intellect is > equated with SOM, with value-free classical squareness, and is otherwise > treated as the enemy and the problem. I suppose it's not just a coincidence > that such a view is held by unreasonable people, by those who are not > persuaded by evidence or reason. > > Pirsig's first book presents the problem in detail. ZAMM focuses on the > cultural costs of SOM in the contemporary West and it traces the origins of > this problem all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. He shows us what > corruption means in the "church of reason". It's no accident that the > anti-intellectual mind is going love this critique and, apparently, take > that criticism as Pirsig's central message. They love to hate the problem > too much. They love to hate the problem so much that they fail to see the > solution. Bo even goes so far as to consider LILA a betrayal of the original > truest truth. > > Intellect was never equated to SOM in the first book either, but that fact > doesn't bother the anti-intellectualists either. > > It seems to me that the anti-intellectualist view is almost never arrived at > by reflection or learning. It's an attitude, not a logical conclusion or a > view compelled by the relevant evidence. And some people with that attitude > find themselves reading Pirsig's classic and they love, love, love it - but > for all the wrong reasons. They don't want rationality to be seen as an art > form or as the highest expression of the godhead in the works of man. They > love to hate intellectual values and so they ignore all of Pirsig's talk > about the solution and/or find some lame excuse to disregard it. > > I think this attitude is very common and has almost nothing to do with > Pirsig's thought. People bring this attitude with them when they read ZAMM > and the message they take from the book is just exactly what they already > believed anyway. You know, like one of those ink-blot tests. > > But of course the art of thinking has always been about examining ourselves, > our beliefs and assumptions. It's predicated on a willingness to question > the values of one's own culture, to question the gods. But some merely use > the quips and quotes that seem to validate them. I don't what that's called, > but it ain't the love of wisdom and I can only see the most common and crude > value in that; ego. > > > . > > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
