[MD] Decision

[Dan Glover]

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:
> [Matt]
>> However, what is this "line"?  What actions are we talking
>> about?  Is nobody reading the junk I wrote?  I'm saying that
>> blaspheming against intellectual integrity doesn't to me seem
>> easily posed as a criterion with which we can lay down a rule
>> with which to kick people out.  For the lifespan of Milton-Mill
>> life of free inquiry, the assumption has been that the best
>> way to keep inquiry free and shuck falsity from truth is to
>> keep the _structure_ wide and clear from dogma and let the
>> inquirers/warriors fight it out.  As Rorty said, "take care of
>> freedom, and truth will take care of itself."  I'm not just
>> spouting moralistic propaganda, I'm talking about practical,
>> structural bits of wisdom of how to best assure that truth is
>> what comes out from an institution.
> ...
> What is this line?  What happens when the
>> next person crosses it?  We blast more emails about how wrong
>> they are?  That's what we've always done, and the only thing
>> to do without making structural changes to the rules of the
>> game.
>>
>
> [Mary]
> Hi Matt and all,
>
> The line Bo crossed violated the cult of celebrity.

Dan:
Since when is honesty a cult?

>Mary:
> The inherent problem this forum has always had is that we are discussing the
> works of a living author.  It's nobody's fault.  We admire and respect him
> or we wouldn't be here, but the flip side is that we self-censor as a
> legitimate form of respect at the expense of potential Intellectual Level
> advancement; and, though we are often rude and aggressive with each other,
> no one wants to be that way with him.  Not even me.  This places a limit on
> just how open and honest the discussion can really ever be.
>
> If you place yourself in mine and Bo's and Platt's shoes for a moment, here
> is what you would see:  From our perspective, Pirsig chose to reverse
> everything he wrote in two books with a comment in Lila's Child.

Dan:
Now this is precisely what I mean about honesty. How in hell can you
say that he reversed everything he wrote in his first two books? HE
DID NOT! All he did in LILA'S CHILD was reinterate what he wrote in
LILA. You're being intellectually dishonest, Mary. Yes, you are.

You've been offered quote after quote from LILA by dmb and others in
an effort to show you Bo's mistake in saying SOM equals the
intellectual level of the MOQ. And you ignore it all. Why? Get your
head out of ... well ... the sand. Yes. That's much nicer than what
I'm really thinking.

RMP clearly states in LILA that he considers inorganic and biological
patterns to be synoymous with the objective side and social and
intellectual patterns to be synonymous with the subjective side. How
can you reconcile that with the intellect of the MOQ being SOM? You
can't. Period. So lie a little. Or a lot in this case.

Mary:
 There is
> no shame in this, but the group wants to deny that any such reversal ever
> took place, fearing, I guess, that if they admitted that Pirsig reversed
> himself that would somehow diminish his stature or make him seem indecisive.
> It's an ugly sight to see.  IMO this is a textbook case of the Social Level
> overpowering the Intellectual.  Who knows?  Maybe that's the right thing to
> do?

Dan:
What's ugly is the mangling of the MOQ that you, Bo, Platt, and Marsha
insist on. Since you can't get his words to suit your point of view,
you resort to dishonesty. Not very pretty.

>Mary:
> No one seems to see this, nor is it realized that had Pirsig instead said
> that Bo's interpretation was correct, Bo would be on a holy pedestal with
> this same group of people!  I think both positions are equally bad -
> condemning Bo or praising him because either would be done for the wrong
> reason, and I believe you can see exactly what I mean here.  The value of a
> concept should not be judged by who put it forward or who disagrees, but
> should be judged on merit alone.

Dan:
If an idea has merit, it survives. If it is nonsense, it doesn't. I'm
afraid you're feeling the death knell of the SOL, Mary, and you don't
like it. Sorry.

>Mary:
> Pirsig himself offers some advice:
>
> You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one
> is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know
> it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to
> political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's
> always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
> - ZMM Chapter 13
>
> And here are the parting words of Gavin.  Most people don't bother to
> explain why they quit participating.  He was doing us a favor:
>
> [Gav]
> more division and blame and hatred is (obviously?) not the answer. but well
> i guess that ain't so obvious...
>
> so for the time being it is adieu and adios and fare thee well.
> i have become disenamoured of the list of late....i don't like the tenor -
> the intolerance, the arrogance, the cult of reason. i can't seem to do
> anything about it by writing so maybe my resignation will have a more
> salutary effect.

Dan:

Instead of judging everyone as arrogant, maybe you ought to take the
time to wonder why Bo and others in his following have to resort to
lies and outright dishonesty to prop up the SOL foolishness.

Honestly,

Dan