[MD] CA 2

[John Carl]

Tell you what, Adrie, guys,

I'm gonna get through this thing, because I want to, for my own reasons and
development.  I appreciate your thoughts and reading.  I'll try and take the
reader into consideration BUT, the CA series I'm doing mainly for my own
reasons.  And I've got enough off-list confirmation that I feel it's a
valuable enterprise.

I'll throw you this bone, Adrie - I'll keep a balance.  Instead of "not
this, not that", I offer you "a little of this, a little of that".  With
plainly placed labels so you can avoid what you despise, and relish what you
like.

Fair enough?

Fair enough.

jc


On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:54 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Greetzz, Guys
>
> Been reading the annotations very extensively, at first , only with my own
> insight and previous knowledge of the context
> and general message of the work of Mr Pirsig, but then after that, been
> reading them again,after i spoke with Dave of the
> annotations , especially in regard of Pirsigs reflection on The Perrennial
> philosophy(Huxley).
> Dave placed the annotations in the same context as he is doing here,..and i
> 'm able to see that Dan is doing the same
> and on top of that , apparently Ant went the same path, trying to keep the
> annotations in context.
>
> Yes well i agree, very important to keep them in context, and especially
> this , the carefulll reader needs to read and to plow thrue
> the black parts too, not only the red annotations,there is the need to keep
> it all framed.
>
> But reading them, trying to explore them, i found no inconsistencies in
> regard to the content/context of Mr Pirsigs Books
> I found no inconsistencies in Dave's abstractions on this matter, nor on
> his
> abstraction on the Perrennial phil eye-wink of
> Pirsig in the annotations.
>
> So i agree with Pirsig, Dan, Dave, Ant.
> This point of view , however , is not in any way written on the purpose of
> disagreeing with JC, i like your stuff , JC,..most of the time.
> and i still remember a nice written posting , very crisp clear, neat, and
> intelligent about the Monterey Bay area.
> It took my interest for several reasons, it was superbly written,it had
> content, was consistent and it showed you have something to say, without
> the
> nessecity digging in the annotations, you have stuff to say about your own
> life's impressions, and i like to read it
> i like to know this native things, how it is written, how it is
> expierienced.........loved it all the way, good path.
>
> I like to know all this things Jc, you should write more of the good
> stuff...not the lesser stuff.
> What i meant to say JC, is this , throw of the backpack you are carrying,
> will make you one of the best Squirrels around here.
> Okay, and now i have to do some Quality-gardening, and thinking back during
> that about this Monterey posting you made ,
> will improve or make my day, maybe i will read some more of you guys later
> this evening.
>
> Adrie
>
>
>
> 2010/8/18 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
>
> > Hello everyone
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:47 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In reference to Pirsig's annotations, John said:
> > > You gotta love the guy.  Look at him dodge and weave!  What a
> complicated
> > tour-de-force! ... Ok, so let's move on, with the realization that RMP is
> > being very cagey for some reason. ...You gotta give credit to the guy,
> he's
> > tap-dancing up a storm here. ... See what I mean?  If that's not some
> fancy
> > dancin', I dunno what is.  ... Ok, at this point I'd like to pause and
> ask a
> > question.  How?  How does the MoQ take both sides?  ...So how can one
> take
> > "both sides"  from an MoQ perspective,  hmmm???
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > dmb says:
> > >
> > > I think you have to remember that Pirsig comments were directed at
> > Anthony McWatt, who was working on his Ph.D. thesis at the time. His
> answers
> > can be very succinct because by then Ant had already spent a lot of time
> > getting to understand philosophy in general and the MOQ in particular.
>  It's
> > my impression that it only seems like cagey tap-dancing to you because
> you
> > haven't done that kind of work. I'm saying your accusations of dodging
> and
> > weaving are without merit.
> > >
> > > Would take a huge dose of humility to accept the proposition that
> Pirsig
> > would know which ideas the MOQ can and cannot go along with? I don't
> think
> > that's too much to ask.
> >
> > Hi John and David
> >
> > I tend to agree with dmb here though that is not to slight any
> > contributor who hasn't been around long enough to consider the context
> > of certain RMP quotes such as the Copleston annotations. I seem to
> > remember Anthony McWatt warning us of just this instance... of someone
> > taking the annotations out of context.
> >
> > Thank you for reading,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> 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
>