[MD] The Mythos-Logos issue.

[Joseph Maurer]

On 6/29/10 1:01 AM, "Ian Glendinning" <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:

 
 
Hi Ian and all,
 
Iqn, imho your point misses the mark.  You are agreeing with Horse¹s
assessment that Bo is posting a ³dishonest misrepresentation².  The only
evidence for that is ³He said, she said².   If our opinions are so foreign
to logic, then, Horse can say ³Shut UP!²  Bo is trying to make the best of a
logic that accepts a ³social level² as a level of evolution.  I would argue
that forever!  Should I quake in my boots that I will be asked to leave?
Bo has always been respectful in his discussion about what Pirsig meant.
Does respect mean he can¹t have a thought of his own?
 
I have found Bo¹s take on the evolution of intellect profound, and if Pirsig
and Horse, his representative, do not agree I have no problem with
disagreement among friends!.  Should we then not think for ourselves when
discussing what Pirsig said? Let Bo and Horse fight it out!
 
Joe

> And Bo, whilst I defend the fact that you do have valid points,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Dishonesty is exactly why we have a moderator.
> Ian