[MD] now it comes

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[DMB]
MOQers, this is a great example of why it is completely pointless to discuss
anything with Bo.

[Arlo]
As I said the other day to Adrie, its a genre conflict, with you speaking from
the "academic" genre and Bo and the SIMians relying on the distortions and
dishonesty of "talk-radio". This is all they have. Intellectually, Bo's pet
theory is nowhere. Its appeal has always been emotional. And while the
emotional appeal ranges a love of zen to a hatred of intellect to a need to
declare moral superiority over the "social" others of the world, it all boils
back to an "argument" sustained only by anti-intellectual emotionalism.

You are trying to speak "academically" to people who hold the word "academic"
to be a pejorative. You are trying to argue for the expansion of rationality to
people who wish to condemn rationality. And you expect rationality from them? 

[DMB]
Does anyone, other than the usual suspects, have any problem grasping this?
It's just so clear and simple to me that I'm a bit stunned that anyone could
fail to see it, let alone fail year after year after year. Is there something
confusing about that passage?

[Arlo]
Bo's understanding of Pirsig has always been weak at best. I am sure he thinks
he is onto something, and I've encouraged him to take his argument to valid
ground, to champion the stance that HIS ideas are BETTER than Pirsig's. But it
should not be a surprise that he doesn't understand the passages you keep
posting.

[DMB]
Calling all sane people, calling all sane people. I need a reality check. 

[Arlo]
Just as he misunderstood our recent dialogue about precessional calculations
(with several comments!), Bo is trapped in a prison of interpretative
legitimacy, and sees only that which allows him to say that HE speaks for
Pirsig (which has now devolved to 'pre-hospitalized Pirsig'... or Platt's
ridiculous "hey, he didn't say he didn't change his mind, so he might have!").

Platt's recent comments about harmony are, at least, a step toward the valid
ground, the argument they SHOULD be having about whose ideas are BETTER and
importantly WHY, but we will have to wait to see if it goes anywhere, or it too
devolves back into the pit of interpretative legitimacy.