[MD] The Mythos-Logos issue.

[Ian]

Jo, I don't really get your points but my response inserted :

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2010, at 22:44, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

>
> 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 Horse’s
> assessment that Bo is posting a “dishonest misrepresentation”.
Yes, based on years of persistent dishonest argument.
> The only
> evidence for that is “He said, she said”.   If our opinions are  
> so foreign
> to logic, then, Horse can say “Shut UP!”
I honestly have no idea what you mean here.
> Bo is trying to make the best of a
> logic that accepts a “social level” as a level of evolution.  I  
> would argue
> that forever!  Should I quake in my boots that I will be asked to  
> leave?
Me too. No idea what this has to do with horse's complaint
> Bo has always been respectful in his discussion about what Pirsig  
> meant.
It is not respectful to pass off Bo's formulation as if it was created  
or explicitly endorsed by pirsig.
> Does respect mean he can’t have a thought of his own
Of course he can, but he can't dishonestly say it was pirsig's thought.
>
> I have found Bo’s take on the evolution of intellect profound,
Not profound, just the normal interpretation. The history of intellect  
is not being disagreed with.
> and if Pirsig
> and Horse, his representative,
No horse is not pirsig's rep he is mine and yours. Upholding the rules  
of this forum, not the ideas of pirsig.
> do not agree I have no problem with
> disagreement among friends!.
Bo is still my friend. I recommend he takes horse's point seriously,  
and address it.
> Should we then not think for ourselves when
> discussing what Pirsig said?
Dumb question. Yes. Just not the point at issue.
> Let Bo and Horse fight it out!
This is not about horse's original thoughts or opinions of Bo's  
thoughts. It's about respect for the institution of moderator applying  
our rules
>
> 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
>
>
> 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