[MD] The Mythos-Logos issue.

[Ian Glendinning]

Mary ? What the ?

You said
I'm just concerned to hear that the accepted view is now that ZMM and
Lila were not inspired by an aversion to SOM.

That is precisely the accepted view as you knew, when you chose that
piece of straw-man rhetoric. Bo's formulation places SOM as the
highest static level of morality in the in the MoQ, despite that
accepted view .... which he is entitled to do. What he is not entitled
to do is to say it was Bob's idea that he do so and that Bob has
agreed with him doing so.

Ian

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> [Horse>
>> You're quite wrong. There is no censorship going on here or enforcement
>> of purity of thought or whatever other rhetorical mangling you care to
>> mention.
>>
> [Mary Replies]
> I believe you honestly believe this.  I cannot argue with that.
>
> [Horse to Platt>
>> I see - you're comparing me to the Russian Communists by the above
>> comments. I hope Mary is reading this and will admonish you in the same
>> way that she admonished me. Somehow I doubt it.
>
>
> [Mary Replies]
> Sorry you have that opinion of me.  I have said something to deserve it,
> otherwise you would not have said it.  Bo will choose to do whatever he
> chooses to do and it will have nothing to do with me; I'm just concerned to
> hear that the accepted view is now that ZMM and Lila were not inspired by an
> aversion to SOM.
>
> [Horse]
>> What I have said to Bo applies to all with regard to the SOL issue but
>> as it is Bo's baby, it was addressed to him.
>> I have no objections to you or anyone else being willing to say that
>> you
>> believe Pirsig is wrong - I have also disagreed with some of what
>> Pirsig
>> has said. What I have stated that I object to is Bo's continual and
>> deceitful attempts to say that Pirsig is the originator of the SOL
>> (untrue) and that Pirsig supports the the idea that SOM (S/O etc.) =
>> Intellectual level (also untrue), along with other false statements
>> regarding Pirsig's support for the SOL.
>>
> [Mary Replies]
> Understood.
>
> My problem is that after several years abeyance I have returned to find that
> what was once understood about the MoQ is now no longer.  Ok, but what
> Pirsig chooses to say now cannot erase what he said before, and if he has
> figured out how to accomplish that, I would sure like to know how.  I've
> said plenty of things in the past I wish I could erase now too!
>
> Another thing is if his new formulation is better, then it should stand up
> against comparison with the old.  It might even be instructive to analyze
> the differences.  If I can't say something about how ZMM wrestled with
> question X this way but turned it into Y in Lila later, then what?
>
> And the last thing is when people say Pirsig _never_ said X and always said
> Y.  If, for instance, I'm smart enough to understand where he says Y in one
> place, would I be simultaneously too dumb to understand the X somewhere
> else?  Maybe I don't understand the X or the Y?  What if he's really saying
> Z and none of us have it right?  Hmmm  Are we sure?  What are we going to do
> when he dies?  No more new annotations or DVDs then.  Maybe now would be a
> good time to hash it out?  I guess you could only do that though if people
> who thought both X and Y felt welcome.
>
> [Platt]
>> > Enforcement of purity of thought smacks of the totalitarian mind.
>>
> [Horse]
>> It does, you're right, and for this reason I would never do such a
>> thing
>> as you know only too well.
>>
> [Platt]
>> > And Pirsig would be the last person in the world to say you must
>> agree with him or else
>> > you are persona non grata.
>> >
>>
> [Horse]
>> And Bo should be the first person to say that Pirsig has stated that he
>> doesn't agree with Bo's SOL interpretation of the MoQ. Pirsig has said
>> this and if Bo continues to ignore what Pirsig has said and say the
>> opposite then he's a liar. He's also being maliciously deceitful and
>> this is why I am asking him to cease his lies and deceptions.
>>
> [Platt]
>
>> > I urge you to reconsider your position.
>> [Horse]
>> There is no need to reconsider my position - my position is as clear as
>> Pirsigs position regarding the SOL. Bo must stop the deception and
>> distortion. It's wrong and to continue is similarly wrong.
>>
>>[Platt]
>> > No doubt your motive is well intentioned,
>> [Horse]
>> You know perfectly well that it is Platt and I'm also sure that you
>> know
>> what I'm saying makes sense and is the right thing to do.
>> By all means support Bo's idea that SOM (S/O etc.) = Intellectual level
>> - just stop saying that this is Pirsigs position or that he is the
>> originator of the SOL or similar such nonsense. Is that asking too
>> much?
>>
> [Platt]
>> > but please consider that censorship violates the "moral right of
>> intellect to be free of social control" -- a basic tenet of the MOQ.
>> >
>>[Horse]
>> Another basic tenet of the MoQ is that lies, dishonesty and deliberate
>> deception to achieve ones intellectual ends is a violation of the good.
>> Bo is guilty of this and needs to re-evaluate his position.
>>
>
> 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
>