[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Hello Horse,

> Hi Mary
> 
> On 28/06/2010 11:41, Mary wrote:
> > Hello Horse, Arlo, Bo, and all,
> >
> >   [Horse]
> >
> >> Can't see that happening any time soon Arlo - this is an ego thing
> with
> >> Bo. Until he gets his ego under control we'll continue to get the
> same
> >> old drivel that we've been getting for some time.
> >>
> >
> > [Mary Replies]
> > Is this [questioning a person's motivations] an updated variation on
> the
> > theme that the first person to mention the Nazi's has lost the
> argument?
> > Seems like it.
> >
> [Horse]
> Seems like you're taking a leaf out of Platt's book in arguing like
> this
> Mary. Talk radio distortion.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Ummm, I really like you a lot, Horse, but, unfortunately I have to point out
that I was only cutting and pasting straight out of your previous reply to
Kremil.  It was in my original post and here it is again:
> [Horse]
> Lovely - I missed that little gem. Cheers Krim. Is this an updated 
> variation on the theme that the first person to mention the Nazi's has
lost the argument.
> Seems like it.

> > [Horse]
> >
> >> Even as an alternative to Pirsigs MoQ the SOL sucks.
> >>
> > [Mary Replies]
> > Though in disagreement with this, you nevertheless have the right to
> say so.
> >
> 
> I would hope so - not a lot of point in 10 years or so of maintaining
> this list if I can't join in.
> 
> > [Horse]
> > But with so much
> >
> >> time and ego invested in SOL Bo will not let go of it.
> >> However, one thing I am going to start insisting upon is that Bo
> >> refrains from saying that Pirsig supports the SOL as this is
> completely
> >> false and to continue doing so is not only wrong but is
> intellectually
> >> dishonest. Pirsig has stated quite clearly that the he does not
> >> consider
> >> SOL/SOM as Quality Intellect etc. as part of the MoQ and has also
> >> stated
> >> that it undermines the MoQ.
> >> So Bo if you are reading this then please take note of the above.
> >> Pirsig
> >> does not support your interpretation of the MoQ and you should not
> try
> >> and make out that he does.
> >>
> >>
> > [Mary Replies]
> > It is one thing to moderate a conversation and quite another to
> censor one,
> > particularly when the objection is prefaced by casting aspersions on
> > motivations about which one can only speculate.  We can hurl quotes
> at one
> > another all day without reaching consensus as to exactly what Pirsig
> meant
> > by what he said.  This is likely purposeful.  Pirsig is averse to
> papal
> > bulls.  Have you given consideration as to why?
> >
> 
> Seems to me that whenever I ask someone to behave reasonably I'm
> accused
> of being censorious - which ain't the case.

[Mary Replies] 
Every time _anyone_ tosses the ego card I will call it foul.  That's a cheap
shot.  It's unworthy of you, just like the Nazi comment, or the 'talk radio'
comment.  Do any of you really think insulting my (or anyone else's)
intelligence is going to persuade me or them agree with you?  Do you really
believe Bo or anyone else is on here massaging their egos?  I don't even
think that of DMB, thought I admit it is tempting.  I'm not going to respond
to most of these posts directly, but are we in kindergarten or what?  Do any
of you think this level of discourse is representing the MoQ well?  What if
somebody joined today?  Do you think they would find what they came here
for?  

I realize the moon was full, but I took a weekend out of town and came back
to incredible amounts of crap.  Wow?  If I want to read mindless insults
based in nothing I can look at the comments on YouTube.  

> Far from censoring Bo, I have given him (and his followers) a platform
> (MD) to express those ideas (also publishing Bo's SOL essay on the main
> site) - even though I completely disagree with him! A very odd form of
> censorship!


[Mary Replies] 
What makes you think everyone who adheres to the SOM interpretation is a 'Bo
follower'?  I generally think for myself.

> As far as I'm concerned Pirsig has stated quite clearly that he does
> not
> support the SOL and I am asking Bo to stop trying to pretend otherwise.
> This, in my opinion, is not only dishonest but unnecessary. Apart from
> Pirsig's comments on the subject it would appear blatantly obvious that
> Bo's position and Pirsigs position are at odds. If Pirsig had thought
> that the Intellectual level was the S/O divide (or whatever such
> nonsense is being posited) he would have made the case for it in either
> ZMM, Lila, LC, SODV etc. He was capable of it, he didn't do it, he's
> voiced his disagreement and to ignore all this and continue to pretend
> otherwise is Just plain wrong. I fail to see how the following can be
> speculative or unclear:
> 
> Platt:
> SOM is the current mental framework and means of communication in which
> we operate from day to day....
> 
> Pirsig:
> I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS IS INCORRECT because many forms of intellect
> do
> not have a subject-object construction.. (My emphasis)


[Mary Replies] 
That's fine, but, as I have asked before, NAME ONE.

> 
> This is crystal clear, no interpretation necessary. Platt champions
> Bo's
> position, Pirsig thinks it's incorrect. Full stop. Period. End of
> conversation. Whether Pirsig is correct or not is irrelevant. He
> doesn't
> agree with Bo's position. Bo should defend his own position, in
> opposition to Pirsigs view on it's own merit and not dishonestly
> distort
> Pirsigs position.
> Bo should not continue to remain in denial about what is obvious to
> anyone who can read. 

[Mary Replies] 
Excuse me, but I can read - oh yeah, and write too.

This is why I have asked him to refrain from
> saying
> that Pirsig agrees with something that he quite plainly disagrees with.
> This is not censorship, it is intellectual honesty and good manners.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
GOOD MANNERS?   

> My comments as to Bo's motives are as relevant as his comments towards
> other peoples motives - so how come you're favouring Bo and ignoring
> his
> disrespectful treatment of others (including Pirsig) and trying to pull
> me up for stating what I believe is the reason (ego) that Bo persists
> in
> his fantasy?
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Because you are the moderator and Bo is not.  

Best,
Mary