[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Horse]

Hi Mary

On 29/06/2010 05:20, Mary wrote:
> 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.
>>      

Yeah I know where it was from Mary - your re-use of it seemed a bit 
disingenuous.
I like you a lot too Mary - and likewise Bo, Platt and Marsha - but that 
doesn't mean I won't disagree with you or the others or fail to say what 
I think on this list. The original comment itself was meant in a 
light-hearted way - Bo (and you apparently) seem to have misconstrued 
both intent and meaning. Perhaps I need to use more smiley's. Such is life!

>    
>>> [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 most certainly do. I also think that many people who post regularly to 
the list have substantial egos (myself included), which accounts for 
much of the vehement disagreements - but the majority are not so 
egotistical as to think that they are the possessors of the one, true 
interpretation of the MoQ, something that Bo has stated a number of 
times. Also, most on this list are not blinded by their ego to the 
extent that they are incapable of seeing the difference between their 
own interpretation of Pirsigs MoQ and Pirsigs interpretation of the MoQ. 
Bo most certainly suffers from this problem, in my opinion. Hence the 
comments regarding ego.

> 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?
>    

Dunno! What people expect and what they get are often two different 
things. I think we have a very good level of discourse on MD and I 
intend to keep it that way.
Do you think they come here to learn that Bo thinks that Pirsig is too 
stupid to understand his own work? Or that we should be discussing Bo's 
MoQ and not Pirsigs. If I were new to the list and was instantly leapt 
upon by Bo (metaphorically speaking) telling me that the author of a 
work that I admired was ignorant of the meaning of his own work and 
that, really, it's Bodvar Skutvik who is the true font of all MoQ 
knowledge and lore I'd be sorely tempted to tell him to F.O.A.D.- 
shortly before unsubscribing!
Squabbles and fights break out often and this is to be expected when you 
are discussing core beliefs. Why is that a problem? Nervous Nora's 
should not get involved in metaphysical discussions. They'll only get upset.

> 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.
>    

Now who's being insulting? Bo can make all the patronising, insulting, 
disingenuous and downright rude and obnoxious comments he likes but when 
others get frustrated by his arrogance and stupidity and say so, it's 
they that are talking crap. Double standards here I think. When you 
start taking Bo to task for his insults and rudeness I'll take your 
comments about crap from others more seriously.

>    
>> 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.
>    

Where have I said you don't? I didn't say you are a Bo clone did I?. I 
know you think for yourself - which is why Bo has admonished you on 
several occasions for not seeing things as he does. But you agree with 
much of Bo's position re:SOL and for this reason I called you a follower 
- not an acolyte, clone or anything else.
You also avoided my comments about your accusation of me being 
censorious. How, given the degree of freedom Bo has to forward his ideas 
on the list and on the main site, do you square this with censoring Bo.

There are two issues here:
1) Bo's freedom to put forward and argue his own ideas regarding the 
Intellectual level of the MoQ
2) Bo's freedom to distort Robert Pirsigs position - stated quite 
clearly - regarding Bo's position regarding the Intellectual level of 
the MoQ

RE: 1) Bo can say what he wants about his own position and 
interpretation of the MoQ - personally I think it's incomprehensible 
garbage and I'm entitled to think and say so.

RE:2) I object strongly to Bo saying that Pirsig doesn't understand his 
own work and that he is a coward and a fool. I also object to Bo 
dishonestly and maliciously distorting what Pirsig has said for his own 
arrogant and egotistical ends.
Pirsig does not agree with Bo re: Intellectual level.
Pirsig has stated this clearly.
Bo will cease his dishonesty.
This also applies to any other member of MD.
If anyone doesn't like that then tough - it's NOT open for negotiation.
Clear?


>    
>> 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.
>    

Pirsig has given you several and so have I and so have several others. 
You don't accept what we say and continue to insist that it's subjects 
and objects all the way down! You have over-defined the idea of subjects 
and objects to the point where any other position becomes defined out of 
the equation and as such becomes meaningless. If you insist on seeing 
subjects and objects everywhere and are subsequently blind to what 
others see then so be it. Not my problem!

>    
>> 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.
>    

Glad to hear it. Then perhaps you should re-read Pirsigs position on 
Bo's interpretation of the intellectual level. Do you want the quotes 
again or do you have a copy of Lila's Child. Chapter 13 and annotations 
I believe.


> 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?
>    

Yes good manners - or perhaps GOOD MANNERS!!!!
I know that, along with intellectual honesty, it's a bit of a tricky 
concept but it's something that is very useful when discussing the MoQ.
It's surprising how refreshing it can be. Opens up whole new vista's of 
discourse and shuts down many pointless ones.

>    
>> 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.
>    

I'm also a fully paid up member of this list and as such have the right, 
as a member of MD, to say what I think about Bo's position, motives and 
relevance. As I've already said, when you start chewing chunks out of Bo 
for his insults and arrogance the way you do with me, I'll consider your 
objections differently.

Cheers Mary


Horse


-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa