[MD] Intellectual honesty

[John Carl]

well dave, you may be done, but I'm not...


> dmb says:
>
> John, I can tell from this that you do not even understand the meaning of
> the word "perennial", let alone the phrase "perennial philosophy", which is
> exactly where Pirsig finds such shocking agreement. (I also subscribe to the
> perennial philosophy, by the way.) I also think it's a pretty ridiculous
> stretch to say his shock is a result of expecting Hegel. He's shocked
> because he could find so little to agree with and so much to object to in
> Bradley's positions up to that point. Of course he's surprised to find that
> he's close to describing the MOQ's central term. (That's what makes the
> perennial philosophy work.)
>
> Sorry, John. But every time we get into it, I end up having to explain your
> evidence to you. It's just too hard to believe that you know what you're
> talking about, so I'm done.
>
>
> Again.
>
>

So, he's just shocked, shocked I say, to find so much to object to in
Bradley's explication of Absolute Idealism and he's shocked, shocked I say,
to find out there's some small smidgeon of interesting tidbit in the midst
of all this dreck.

much in the same way, I'm shocked, shocked I say, to find out that you don't
wanna dialogue any longer with me.

And why should you dave?

Here you are, this fantastic professor and all, accolades all around and
this nothing, this stupid idiotic woodworker (me) just can't fathom your
incredible brilliance.

I don't blame you a bit.

I mean, what's in it for you?

Where's the advantage?

Pragmatically speaking.

There is none.  Not for you dave.  And there never will be.


so now we know.