John Carl said July 8th 2014:

"I don't know what to say except the only people who have ever accused me of 
stupidity are very stupid people. I have more than a few friends who are smart, 
and they all respect my intelligence so I don't know what else to conclude 
about you three, Arlo and Ant and DMB. You're just not that
smart. Certainly not smart enough to judge MY intelligence."


DMB said to this comment earlier today:

"...Who defines intellect by IQ alone? Not me. And it seems you've carefully 
avoided every opportunity to demonstrate your understanding and intelligence. 
Like I said, the problem is your refusal to engage with the substance of the 
criticisms..."


Arlo wisely said to you earlier today:

"...Any philosophy forum is open to (or should be open to) what I call "learned 
disagreement". Philosophy itself, as a tradition, is a long narrative of 
thesis, disagreement, affirmation, reconstruction and extension. Pirsig, in 
this larger narrative, presents a "learned disagreement" with the Aristotelian 
tradition and how it has shaped cultural attitudes. His work is, in many ways, 
an extension of the works of James and Dewey and other pragmatists. It is not 
'copy', but it is not a soliloquy in a vacuum either..."


And also said to you earlier today:

"...As I tell students I work with, the simplest progression is "A said B. A 
was wrong about B. This is why A was wrong about B. I propose C instead of B. 
Here's why C is better." Each step in this progression is subject to 
examination for accuracy, and you can't conflate criticism with one step as 
criticism for another (or all)."


Ant McWatt comments:


John,

To add to what both DMB and Arlo have said to you, I will also remind you of 
one of my favorite phrases of Pirsig's found right at the beginning of ZMM in 
Chapter 1:

"In this Chautauqua I would like not to cut any new channels of consciousness 
but simply dig deeper into old ones that have become silted in with the debris 
of thoughts grown stale and platitudes too often repeated. 'What's new?' is an 
interesting and broadening eternal question, but one which, if pursued 
exclusively, results only in an endless parade of trivia and fashion, the silt 
of tomorrow. I would like, instead, to be concerned with the question 'What is 
best?,' a question which cuts deeply rather than broadly, a question whose 
answers tend to move the silt downstream." 

Now, the latter paragraph should apply to ANY philosophy discussion group 
worthy of that name but - especially with the above quote in mind - with the 
one devoted to Pirsig's work.  DMB and Arlo obviously take philosophical 
discussion very seriously AND SO DO I - most of the time anyway... (I know 
we're not perfect in this regard).

Judging from your recent contributions on this discussion group, I know you 
like flitting from one philosophical issue to another like a butterfly on speed 
or a young kid in a large candy shop.  Unfortunately, MOQ Discuss (like any 
other philosophy discussion group that wants to cut deeply into an issue) just 
can't work that way whatever interesting thoughts might quickly pass ANY one's 
mind during the day. That's not why MOQ Discuss was established for, way back 
when (in 1998) and this remains the case today.
Facebook (or a similar social internet network) might be OK for just passing 
the day with such brief observations and comments but not here. 

However, IF you'd like to discuss Pirsig's work on a deeper level, I will 
respond to you seriously but (certainly speaking for myself), if I want to 
discuss 'what's new' in our world today, then I will go down my local bar or 
pick-up the phone to an old mate.  As the old proverb says: "Horses for 
Courses"! 

So, if you want to discuss Pirsig's work with me (or anyone else for that 
matter) here, try to think of the FOREMOST burning issue with Pirsig's work 
over the next day or two and start from there.  And try to just stick to this 
one issue until we reach some sort of agreement or simply, as often  happens in 
philosophy, we just agree to disagree!  If you want to bring in Royce (or any 
other writer/philosopher) to help explain this issue, that's fine with me too 
but personally I don't have the time or inclination to be distracted by trivia 
on any philosophy discussion group and, of course, this Board.

Best (sincere) wishes,

Ant


P.S. I'm meeting-up with a fellow MOQ academic that I have never met before in 
his country on Friday so I won't get the chance to look at MOQ Discuss (or any 
thing else on the internet actually!) for the next few days afterwards.  I'll 
be back home by next Thursday though. A



.                                         
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

Reply via email to