[MD] re, fellow european-Bodvar

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Point proved. Quotes from Pirsig to substantiate claims? None. 
Personal attacks. Repeated.

[Arlo]
Yes, my points were proved. Thank you. Responses to either 
substantive claim? Zero. Whining about "personal attacks"? Two.

Fact: Pirsig has endorsed both Ant and DMB, has been active with Ant 
to bring his ideas into the Academy, and in the DVDs gives them both 
the highest praise. Your claim that they are engaging in 
"philosophology" is ridiculous.

Fact: Pirsig has straight-forwardly denied the SOL is a valid 
intepretation of his work. Bo gets credit for consistency, but his 
claim that "no one talks about Pirsig's ideas" should say instead "no 
one talks about my revisions of Pirsig's ideas, revisions Pirsig denies".

So again, where are these "personal attacks"? Nonexistent. The claim 
only serves your continued evasion.

Let's consider my paragraphs again.

[Arlo's first paragraph]
Lest someone get the wrong impression, Pirsig did NOT, as your post 
implies, champion ignorance. Indeed, Pirsig has given his full 
support to both Ant McWatt and DMB; both working to bring the MOQ 
into the Academy. Anyone wishing to purchase the Pirsig DVD's (from 
Ant McWatt's site) will see first hand the endorsements Pirsig gives 
to these academics. Your accusation that they are involved in 
"philosopholoy" is ridiculous.

No personal attacks at all.

[Arlo's second paragraph]
Bo exemplifies consistency in his determination to promote his 
own  interpretation of the MOQ, which is fine and commendable. But, 
as Horse pointed out, it is important for newcomers to know that 
Pirsig  himself denies outright Bo's SOL interpretation. When Bo says 
"no one is talking about Pirsig's ideas", what he should say is "no 
one talks  about my personal revision of Pirsig's ideas", which is 
fine and probably mostly true.

No personal attacks at all.

[Arlo's third paragraph]
It's no surprise to anyone who has been around for a while, but its 
worth pointing out to the newcomers that there is a very pronounced 
anti-intellectual sentiment here, mostly from you. It is no surprise 
even the simplest of posts you submit almost HAVE to contain some 
inane right-wing, anti-intellectual jab at "statists", "leftists", 
"the media" and those evil "perfessers" in the "commie academy" 
(basically Limbaugh's Boogeymen list).

No personal attacks at all. Simply the valid observation that all 
your posts to this forum contain some interjection of right-wing 
vitriol and anti-intellectualism. Since your initial post served only 
to bash those evil academics (responded to above), this provides valid context.

[Arlo's fourth/final paragraph]
I don't know "what Pirsig hoped for", but again since those he 
chooses to interact directly with are your "evil academics", I'd have 
to say it would seem as if Pirsig endorses more the work being done 
by the likes of Ant and DMB then the sophomoric, anti-intellectual 
"random thoughts" others post here.

No personal attacks here. Well, I suppose you could consider my 
allusion to your "random thoughts" an attack, but its hardly 
personal. My point is simply that YOU claimed Pirsig would find the 
academic discourse here not "what he hoped for", a point demonstrated 
to be ridiculous by Pirsig's ongoing endorsement of both Ant and DMB. 
Perhaps you think Pirsig intended the forum for unrelated, and 
un-insightful generalities interspersed with boring talk-radio 
propaganda, but I see no evidence of this.

So... if you're going to make a third baseless accusation of 
"personal attacks", kindly point out where they are.