John, all,
On re-reading my last MD post carefully, I should have actually said: (in the
second to last paragraph) in regard to the American Pragmatists:
"However, I simply don't think MOQ Discuss is the MOST appropriate place to do
that."
You know, there is nothing wrong in introducing the ideas of Peirce or James or
Royce (or whatever your favorite pragmatist is) on this Board to clarify a
particular point of Pirsig's about the MOQ but to just contribute posts here
that CONTINUALLY overlook or, worse still, purposely just ignore, one of the
most fundamental points about Pirsig's work i.e. that (Dynamic) Quality is
indefinable is h=just waste of everyone's time.
I corresponded with Pirsig about 20 years and eventually realised that this man
had gone through EVERY sentence in ZMM and LILA with a fine toothcomb. Pirsig
has been a chess player since an early age (maybe five or seven; there's a very
early photo of him playing the game as a young child). Like a chess player
practising at home; he's taken every possible metaphysical move in ZMM & LILA
from one position to the next. It's analogous to the way that Lennon &
McCartney worked between 1966 and 1970. Other than their last over-produced
Phil "THE HAIR" Spector album ('LET IT BE'), when Lennon & McCartney had
already long left the band, again there is NOT a sound on one of their songs
which has not been given the hardest 'try-out' to see if it works ARTISTICALLY
or not. Ultimately, it's down to hard work, and that, my friends, is what
Pirsig, Lennon & McCartney have over their respective contemporaries. (That's
why much of the solo Beatles material - especially after 1971 -
is second rate; they'd all - most of the toime anyway - given up making
masterpieces).
Likewise, I now realise that Pirsig's hard analysis of every metaphysical move
from one position to the next, makes Kant look like a rambling amateur and
Plato look like a fool. Define the Good as a type of Form? What an ABSOLUTE
moron! That's analogous to defining God (which is really just another synonym
- ultimately - for the Good/Dynamic Quality). And, Mr Carl, this is also is
exactly the same error (underneath the goading, the twisting of other
contributors posts sent here in good faith) that you keep making with nearly
every post that you ever send in here. An absolute waste of everyone's time
and this is why I called you a troll earlier this year because really -
undernaeth the fake sincerity - that's all you are. An absolute disgrace.
Pirsig & myself must be two of the most HONEST philosophers that you are likely
to ever encounter and you get some bloody smart arse who thinks he knows
better. John, that's what pisses me off when you try the same stunts with Da
vid Buchanan or the other contributors HONESTLY trying to further their
understanding of the MOQ which, I know is not the easiest set of ideas to grasp
for the average 'man in the street'. To use the Sparks song title about George
Bush Junior; most of the time you're just 'dicking around' here.
Maybe you should get a 'professional philosopher' on this Board John but I
highly doubt that you ever will. They have a career and a paid position to
protect. They have THEIR RIDE - to put it in the terms of Bill Hicks!
However, I highly suspect that many of the contributors here - not just me &
Buchanan - will make philosophical mincemeat of them in no time at all.
By the way, just to address yet more of your sleazy propaganda, David Buchana
doesn't have a paid academic position any where and I NEVER have either. I
might be setting-up an MOQ University but that's going to be a fundamentally
different beast (from first metaphysical principles) to these self styled
Platonic based Western universities that you now find across this little world
of ours (whether you're in East Asia, North America, the Middle East or
Europe). IMHO, they are second rate at best; while, at worse, they probably do
the average student more harm than good; certainly in the long run. Like you,
they are a waste of time. Unlike you, they are also a waste of money and other
valuable resources.
Anyway, that's the end of today's 'lecture'. Thanks for 'listening'.
Ant
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [MD] MOQ and science
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:04:19 +0000
Ant McWatt comments:
John,
In regard to your various comments about professional philosophers, yes, good
for you.
To return to the motives of my last question (!), have you thought about
establishing a Royce Discussion Group as that would be a more a more
appropriate place for your interests? As and when time allowed, I'd even help
you set one up as that would give me a good excuse to study Royce (though as a
relatively mainstream philosopher, I find it difficult to believe that someone
else hasn't done this for his work already).
Anyway, Mr Carl, I'm just trying to expand my philosophical horizons
(especially regarding the American pragmatists). However, I simply don't think
MOQ Discuss is the appropriate place to do that.
Finally, I'm sorry to hear about Bodvar btw. Let's hope he's just taking some
time off his philosophy board.
Ant
John Carl stated December 17th:
> [some text is missing here????] ...ists in the Jamews-DeweyI appreciate you
> taking the time to try and correct
> my fallacies...
---- CUT ----
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
