[MD] Intellectual honesty

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve:
>>> If those supporting Horse's action don't think Bo ought to be banned
>>> then I am as confused as Matt is about what administrative action we
>>> are talking about here. I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah...I agree that Bo is
>>> all these flavors of horrible (and probably also a pretty good guy),
>>> but what specific administrative action are we talking about? Is it...
>>
>> Dan:
>> I thought Horse made that clear. Didn't he? Maybe you want to go back
>> and re-read his post.
>
> Steve:
> If it was clear to me, I wouldn't have asked.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 1) a new forum rule where anyone claiming that SOL is Pirsig's idea
>>> risks being banned?
>>> 2) a administrative request that Bo shut the hell up about SOL for a while?
>>> 3) a specific threat leveled at Bo that he will be banned if he in
>>> particular continues to say that SOL was Pirsig's idea?
>>> 4) something else, like Bo will be banned if he continues to try to
>>> woo every newbie that comes along by flattering them and telling them
>>> about how they have blessedly managed to stumble upon the Great
>>> Insight?
>>>
>>> None of us think that Bo's SOL thesis is worth a darn and wish he
>>> would stop harping on it, but what action are you defending here? I
>>> thought it was 1) at first, but maybe it is 2) since you don't think
>>> Bo ought to be banned. I thought Horse had done 1) in which case forum
>>> rules are now:
>>>
>>> #1 You must have read Pirsig's 2 books
>>> #2 You may not say that SOL was Pirsig's idea
>>>
>>> (Are there other rules to add to this list?) But perhaps Horse only
>>> intended 2). I normally delete any posts addressed to or from Bo, so
>>> I'm not at all clear about what has transpired. Is there a new forum
>>> rule or not?
>>
>> Dan:
>> Since you addressed this email to me, I'll answer you as best I can.
>> Steve, aren't you a teacher? I thought you said that somewhere. Do you
>> tolerate intellectual dishonesty in your classroom? I mean, what if a
>> student goes online and downloads papers to turn in rather than
>> putting in the work themselves? And you find out. Do you give them an
>> "A" because it is a quality paper? Or do you confront them about
>> taking someone else's work and claiming it for their own?
>>
>> There are already rules against that, right? I'm not at all sure you
>> understand what Horse is saying. Please. Re-read his post.
>
>
> Steve:
> Yeah, it is wrong to plagiarize and there are consequences for
> plagiarism. What Bo did, I suppose, is more like forgery, though I
> think he really think that it is Pirsig's idea and that Pirsig just
> wussed out or something, but all that is neither hear nor there. We
> agree that what Bo does is wrong. Now, what specific administrative
> action are we talking about?
>
> Horse said: "Should Bo continue, as has done over the weekend, to
> insist and declare that Pirsig supports the SOL, is the originator of
> the SOL etc. then he will be removed from MD. Anyone else who
> maliciously, mischievously or otherwise does the same will be
> similarly removed."
>
> If you don't think Bo ought to be banned as you said, then it sounds
> like you are disagreeing with Horse. Are you?

Dan:
Not at all. I don't want to see Bodvar banned. Why would I want that?
I like Bodvar. But I support Horse. Enough is enough.

Is Bodvar plagarizing the MOQ? No, I don't think so. Is he forging his
own ideas? Yes. And there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.
As long as it is understood that it is Bodvar's idea and not Robert
Pirsig's.

If Bodvar wants to create his own metaphysics, fine. Do it. But don't
take Mr. Pirsig's ideas, crap on them, and then tell everyone that he
really didn't mean what he says. Someone is going to call you on it,
sooner or later.

I remember when I first joined the Lila Squad, there was a fellow
named Doug Renselle who created a kind of chart to the MOQ... I think
he still has it on his quantonics.org website. When Doug shared his
chart with the group, Bodvar went ballastic over it.

Finally, Doug wote a letter to RMP concerning his chart, and RMP
answered that the chart looked fine. And he added that if someone
wanted to do something like that, to add and expand to the MOQ, that
was fine with him. But he thought that the new creation should be
called something other than the MOQ, to avoid confusion.

Doug went off and created his own philosophy which complements the MOQ
but in no way tries to take it and subsume it, as Bodvar wants to do
with his SOL. This whole thing with Bodvar has nothing to do with the
SOL, though! Nothing! You're only lending legitimacy to nonsense by
saying so.

Dan