[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[MarshaV]

Arlo,

You cannot make me angry by using the word 'stupid'.  Or frightened by 
the word buffoon.   I remember what your technique can do.  I remember 
you yelling 'gun on the list' and the trouble it caused.  Meeoow.   


Marsha  


 
 
 
On Jul 12, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha]
> Arlo's unhealthy technique for arguing.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Another round of accusations. Just like this morning when you accused me of "stifling free speech", when I asked you for ONE example, you retreated to your typical inanity.
> 
> And now this. Okay. Marsha. Provide the EVIDENCE for these accusations. I won't hold my breath. I understand its just a diversionary tactic.
> 
> But see, this is the kind of dishonest bullshit that makes the two-three of you look like absolute buffoons. If Bo ever wants to be taken seriously, I suggest he find better supporters. Here's some advice, Marsha, stick to a few incoherent posts going "meow" ever now and then, you'll maybe make a few people confuse this with something other than stupidity.
> 
> Or, you could try at something of substance for once? Or is dishonest distraction really all you have to offer anymore? Or maybe you should just respond "meow" and stick your head back in the ground.
> 
> [Arlo repeats]
> Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo?
> 
> (1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's metaphysics.
> 
> (2) Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".
> 
> Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what value do you think it has?
> 
> Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of Quality" as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's ideas, but that it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's metaphysics"?
> 
> Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes no sense. Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be wrong. In the same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas.
> 
> If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's ideas, do you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for authoritative legitimacy would disappear?
> 
> In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns"?
> 
> Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you to say instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM"?
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___