[MD] Another parallel

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Marsha,

Someday we can hope that DMB and his fellow intellect worshipers will 
come to realize that intellect cannot determine value.

Platt
 


On 20 Jul 2009 at 15:59, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 3:13 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel
> 
> 
> Marsha said to Ron:
> You are asking questions about your own assumptions?  To attempt to answer
> them would be to give them legitimacy, which they do not deserve.
> 
> dmb says:
> On what grounds are you declaring Ron's questions illegitimate and
> undeserving of an answer?
> 
> Marsha:
> They do not reflect my thinking.
> 
> Dmb:
>  I don't see them that way at all. As you might recall, I basically asked
> you the same thing and you refused to answer then too. As I see it, he and I
> are both asking you to explain what looks like an extremely incoherent
> position. It looks like relativism or even nihilism to me, both of which are
> a far cry from the MOQ. 
> 
> Marsha:
> If Ron had a question for me, he should have addressed it to me, not Bo and
> I.  And he might add some context, accusations disguised as questions.   
> 
> 
> Dmb:
> As I see it, anti-intellectualism is not only incorrect and immoral, it's
> dangerous. I mean, if someone were to assert one of the intellectual values
> described in Lila, let's say human rights and freedom of speech for example,
> do you think it would be appropriate to respond with "not this, not that"?
> If a new Hitler were to come along would you respond to the opposition with
> "not this, not that"? The implications and consequences of such a position
> would a moral nightmare.
> 
> Marsha:
> I do not consider myself anti-intellectual, so why should I respond to such
> a charge?   Bringing Hitler into the discussion is a red herring.  
> 
> 
> Dmb:
> Despite my disagreements with you, Marsha, I'd be happy to bite you. ;-)
> Coming from you, that was hilarious. Almost as funny as John's concern with
> the "overreactionaries". 
> Anyway, I'd ask you to THINK carefully about what you're saying but
> apparently you don't believe in that sort of thing. It's just outrageous.
> 
> Marsha:
> To think too carefully tramples my experience.  Don't you get it?  -  I want
> the MoQ to become the prevailing world-view in the West, with high quality
> having a part in every decision made by every man, woman and child.  I love
> the MoQ, and for the moment my question is 'What is Quality?'.  The answers
> I'm discovering, I'm experiencing are:  Neti-neti, or not this, not that.
> Would you have me read from your script instead?  I don't think so.  I think
> you'd want me to continue my investigation. -  You're on the academic track,
> not I.  More than some curiosity, I don't give a bunny's butt what James
> said, or Dewey, or your professors. I do care what Mr. Pirsig says, but I
> also know that his quotes can be used to support many-views.  And here's a
> little secret, after you get your degree, a PhD I'm betting, you will have
> to forget much of what you studied to ask a very simple question:  What is
> Quality?  And you will need to answer it for yourself.  
> 
> Ron's questions are nuts, and I will not give them serious consideration.
> "Are his books worthless".  Ron's got some screws loose.  Ron may just be an
> alpha-male needing some followers.  It ain't me babe!   
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> Ron had said to Marsha:
> > I would like to know, since you folks think MoQ is reality
> > and SOM is intellect , MoQ being indefinable, how may it have
> > more explanitory power if one's focus is on killing those explainations?
> > 
> > Are his books worthless since there are works of SOM?
> > 
> > writing here is then a waste of time and goes against the
> > indefinability of reality. any thing that is written is SOM
> > and all concepts being SOM.
> > 
> > why do you contribute if this is how you view the situation
> > arent you violating your own values? is'nt anything you 
> > write "not it". why waste words? why bother?
> > 
> > to clarify the point, I do not mean that you should not be contributing
> here,
> > I mean, since those are your values, why do you feel the need to express
> something
> > that in your own opinion, may not be expressed?
> > 
> > From my own point of view, if I held those convictions, I wouldn't see
> much value in it
> > I would think that it only muddies the waters. But perhaps I'm missing
> something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows LiveT SkyDriveT: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
> http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/