[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[MarshaV]

On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha]
> Well, unless dmb starts explaining his interpretations, the press release hasn't changed my mind.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Since Pirsig seems able to understand from DMB's writing that DMB has a deep and firm grasp of his ideas, do you think maybe the problem is on your end? I mean, when Pirsig points out that DMB is one of the foremost philosophers of the MOQ, and YOU think his understanding of it is shallow, wouldn't this lead a normal person to think that maybe its in them that the problem lies?

Marsha:
Of course I can be wrong, but here is I interpret dmb's technique.   

When dmb does not explain the idea or point he is presenting, and/or doesn't explicitly explain his interpretation of the quotes (often from Wiki) he is providing, and or doesn't clearly explain his conclusion, the reader is forced to make assumptions.  Dmb then has the advantage of accusing the reader of being clueless or confused or avoiding substance.  The fact is that vague and abbreviated explanations may always be susceptible to incorrect interpretation.  Dmb can than claim mental competency when he, in fact, lacks clear understanding.   This then allows him the option of belittling a responder when it suits him.  If he understands the material, he should be able to explain is position.  But I could be wrong.  To my mind, if he really understood the MoQ he wouldn't need to call people insulting names.

There are many on this list who have stopped responding to dmb, I can join the group.   

 

 
___