[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[MarshaV]

Arlo,

Was my statement "I accept the MoQ rejects an absolute cultural relativism," absurd?  Or was my statement "but truth, static patterns of value, are relative, as Anthony states" absurd?  Is my having such an opinion absurd?  Or is your statement "You (Mark) and Marsha are reaching new heights of absurdity lately" absurd?  Or maybe you have a new bit of absurdity to offer?  Or possibly for you to think that your opinion is not absurd, is even more absurd?   How do you know?  What is your evidence?  How can you be sure?  May there possibly be another explanation?  


Marsha   









On Nov 13, 2010, at 10:20 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Mark]
> dmb has no interest in discussing MOQ with any that have views other than his
> own.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You and Marsha are reaching new heights of absurdity lately. But this harkens
> back to what I had said to Bo, you can agree or disagree with Pirsig, you can
> say "Bob was wrong" and "Bob was right" and you can offer something you think
> is better. But what "view" of the MOQ do you think DMB has? What DMB does, and
> what Pirsig thanked him for in the DVD, is keeping the discussion honest about
> what Bob meant. 
> 
> So disagree with Bob or DMB all you want, point out where you think they are
> wrong, and what you think is better. This is how evolution of ideas occur. But
> to conflate this into "views" is ridiculous. 
> 
> It appears from the bulk of your posts you take exception to Pirsig's comments
> on theism. You are not the first. In the years I've belonged to the list there
> have been a steady stream of religious apologists who have either tried to
> "prove" the MOQ is a religion, or that religion someone sits above reason, or
> that we should dismiss anything Pirsig said about religion and embrace a
> Christian MOQ. And, since DMB agrees with Pirsig on this topic, this has your
> ire and so everything DMB says you attack with inane retorts. 
> 
> [Mark]
> He can quote Pirsig all he wants, it is meaningless to this discussion.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Its meaningless to provide Pirsig's words in a forum about Pirsig's ideas?
> Please. The only reason I can see this bothering you is that you *want* the MOQ
> to mean something and when Bob said something to the contrary it annoys you
> that DMB brings it up to clarify Pirsig's position.
> 
> What other discussion group about a philosopher do you know where quoting the
> philosopher is attacked? 
> 
> [Mark]
> These kids have a superficial notion of things and it is the internet which has
> done that.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I think more perverse is the notion that every post should reinvent the wheel.
> As for the MOQ *and* philosophy, DMB demonstrates a far greater depth of
> understanding and contextual knowledge than I've seen most anyone else here
> contribute. Is it this authority that threatens you? 
> 
> [Mark]
> The old guard is stuck, no more gumption, stuck.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not at all. The "old guard" is, however, likely tired of fending off the
> perennial inanity beset by theist apologists and "anti-intellectuals" who try
> to twist the MOQ into anything and everything except what Pirsig wrote.
> 
> If you think the old guard is stuck, praytell, what do YOU offer that's better?
> Where do you differ with Pirsig, and what better do you offer instead?
> 
> [Mark]
> At least Dan seems to have dropped out.  Maybe dmb will get tired of my
> questions.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Right. Take the people with the best understand of Pirsig's works, drain there
> will with ceaseless attacks, and the cheer when they get fed up and stop
> interacting with you. 
> 
> I'm not sure why you think this is a good strategy for learning about what
> Pirsig wrote, but its very telling.
> 
> 
> 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


 
___