[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mark]
Arlo, you avoided Marsha's original suggestion.

[Arlo]
No I didn't. You asked a question about Humanism, a few other people 
chimed in, DMB entered to make the points relating humanism to 
Pirsig's ideas. I don't know what the problem is there at all?

And I see no evidence that DMB is "blaming" people who disagree with 
him (whatever that means). What I see is a condemnation of twisting 
Pirsig's ideas, and holding to a foundation from which our 
disagreements can germinate. I disagree with Pirsig on a few points, 
and I have no problem separating out where my disagreement is from 
what he wrote. And I imagine if I wrote a post to the forum saying 
Pirsig actually meant what I want him to have meant, that DMB would 
correct me as well.

[Mark]
If dmb is the gatekeeper, fine, but he should describe what is inside 
the gate for us newcomers.

[Arlo]
Gatekeeper? Why do I think you are trying to twist this into a 
condemnation of disagreement. Disagreement is healthy. Disagreement 
spawns the evolution of ideas. Even minor disagreements that lead to 
better contextualization are necessary and should be encouraged. No 
one is saying otherwise. But the issue is not one of disagreement, 
its trying to manipulate a text to force agreement where no agreement 
exists, and it is against that form of dishonesty that we should all 
take a stand.