[MD] The Mythos-Logos issue.

[Ian Glendinning]

Sorry Bo, but if you don't see honesty as part of the etiquette being
moderated then you are simply being dishonest again when you say
"point taken", and lo ...

... you continue to say your SOL interpretation is "clearly written in
ZMM for all to see".

Point patently not taken Bo ?
Ian

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Hi Ian.
>
>  29 June.
>
>> And Bo, whilst I defend the fact that you do have valid points,
>
> Wish I was as balanced as you Ian, seeing valid and invalid  points. To
> me the two camps are mutually excluding, either the intellectual level
> is the S/O juggernaut or it is the "S" part of the same juggernaut, no
> "good points" exist  on both sides.  That the SOL represents the true
> MOQ and that the true MOQ is REVOLUTION no one can shut me up
> on. It cannot be allowed to disappear.
>
>> I completely agree with Horse when he accuses you of dishonest
>> misrepresentation in suggesting that your SOLAQI interpretation is
>> somehow the true interpretation intended by and subsequently agreed
>> with by Pirsig. That is entirely spurious (and wilfully misleading to
>> "newcomers") and undermines any value in any points that you do have.
>
> OK, point taken, but listen: Pirsig is the origin of the Intellect = S/O
> idea (SOL) get that into your head, I'm dead tired of this being
> presented as some pet idea of mine, it's written clearly in ZAMM for
> you (all) to see. That was the revelation for me in its time: finally a
> thinker who had SOM by the throat, but then LILA where intellect
> looked uncannily like GOF mind, meaning that SOM was back in town.
> It has haunted the MOQ for ten plus years and Pirsig HAS migrated
> back towards Phaedrus original insight.
>
>> I have, and Ron recently, engaged in direct dialectical questioning
>> with you, providing opportunities for direct answers that might lead
>> somewhere interesting, and at that point you clam up or change the
>> subject, and repeat your "one true way" claims.
>
> Me clamming up? Regarding Ron I have done nothing but respond to
> his requests but it just resulted in new variations. He's not here for any
> interest in the MOQ just for seeing the Xacto signature and this "war of
> attrition" I have no intention of getting bogged down in.
>
>> Dishonesty is exactly why we have a moderator.
>
> Moderators are for seeing to etiquette, NOT taking sides in the
> discussion at hand and declaring people "dishonest" if not agreeing
> with the moderator.
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>