[MD] re, mary, platt

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt to Mary]
... I 've always thought it close to the height of absurdity to declare that
the man whose ideas we're here to discuss was so pigheaded he could never,
under any circumstances, have second thoughts about his previously stated
opinions.

[Arlo]
Another shining example of the nothing-but-dishonest rhetoric the SIMians can
only rely on. No one ever said anything about Pirsig being too inflexible to
"change his mind". But when he himself says "there is nothing in the MOQ I know
of to support [the SOL]" I take it he would be aware if his "original" opinions
supported that theory.

This inane trap of "interpretative legitimacy" has escalated into such
absurdity, that like Adrie says below I can only shake my head in shame. To now
claim that you speak better than Pirsig for the opinions of the
pre-hospitalized Pirsig simply shows what ridiculous lows you all will follow
to claim authoritative legitimacy, while the valid argument you could be having
(why Bo's MOQ is better than Pirsig's MOQ) goes completely avoided.

[Adrie]
I can understand completely why ANT, or Pirsig are never here, this is a place
of intellectual contamination, you people do not seek Quality, ..your
constantly on the stake-out to shit on it, trying to derail any positive
approach.

[Arlo]
Yes, I agree. This has no escalated into the worst I have ever seen things, the
lowest quality "dialogue" one can imagine occurring. I've tried to nudge the
SIMians back to the real valid ground they should be on, but instead the
devolution continues. But really I am not surprised, Bo's theory has always
been untenable at best, sophomoric, and full of more holes than swiss cheese.
The only sustaining strength it has is in seeking "interpretative legitimacy",
and the few who take him seriously do so out of emotional reasons, which is why
their rhetoric is always dishonest and evasive and trapped in demanding they
speak for Pirsig. 

[Adrie]
I can understand that Bo is not understanding some things, but he doesn't look
like an intellectual pervert to me, but you 2 losers?...your on the edge of
criminal intentions.

[Arlo]
Like I said from the recent re-start of this nonsense, Bo's aim with his
revised MOQ is setting up the foundation for claiming moral superiority for
white, christian, western culture over the "social" peoples that are "everyone
else". Platt is simply a regressive Victorian conservative whose only goal is
to demonize "intellect" and "academics" (placeholders for "liberals",
"progressives" and everyone who does not masturbate to the Limbaugh program).
Marsha, despite her reliance on baseless accusations against me, I think has
the best "heart" of the SIMians, as her adherence to the SOL is out of a
passion for art and Zen. Mary, I had initially pegged to be more or less
sympatico with Marsha, confusing the classic/romantic split of ZMM with
trapping "intellect" in the "classical", "square" category. But I am growingly
convinced there is something else fueling her SIMianity, and her use of such
distortive rhetoric is leading me to see her far more in-line with Platt's
anti-intellectual hatred than Marsha's artistic love.

But again, I am personally biased, as one of those evil academics, towards
Pirsig's desire to expand rationality, not condemn it. I see Pirsig's desire
for a "root expansion" of rationality to be the solution for the problems he
describes, and I think claiming one level is, by definition, entirely "blind"
to values is an untenable and absurd position, one that meets only emotional
needs (as mentioned above) and offers nothing plausible nor insightful to the
dialogue. 

I mean, when your goal is to demonize "intellect" and those awful
"intellectuals", do you really expect to hear a rational or valid argument?
Jokes, pranks, distortions, evasions, dishonesty, yes. 

And this creates a genre conflict. One side is trying to talk "academically",
the other side responds with the rhetoric of "talk-radio". One side is trying
to "expand rationality", the other side is trying to "condemn rationality". And
do you really expect rationality from the people who see rationality itself as
the root cause of all evil in the world?

So when I say, "academically", to Bo to take his argument to valid ground, to
drop the insistence on interpretive legitimacy and argue why his ideas are
better than Pirsig's, I am met only with "talk-radio" bombast such as
accusations that I am "stifling free speech" or that I believe "there is only
one right way to think". 

And now the focus on interpretative legitmacy has devolved to claims about who
speaks for Pirsig's pre-hospitalized self? You are right, no wonder why Pirsig
and Ant don't bother themselves with the list. I'm very close to thinking the
same way. (And yes, I heard Platt, Mary and Bo clap their hands when I said
that.)