[MD] The Johnottations

[John Carl]

dave, I can see you're in need of correction again.

dmb says:
> Yep. This is yet another example of dishonest, selective reading. John
> wants us to think that Pirsig would accept or endorse these idealistic
> notions despite the fact that he's right here on record saying these notions
> are ridiculous nonsense.


John:

I've explained many times, that I find the Copl. Ann. so fascinating,
because Pirsig does a turn-about at the end.  But here in the middle, he
doesn't quite follow.  And he states plainly, that he doesn't quite follow.
Would you like me to take you by the hand and lead you through the text?
You seem to need it, so maybe I should.




But as I stated to Adrie, I left out Pirsig's quote at the end, just like I
left out the whole rest of the text.  You gotta stop somewhere and that's
where I choose.  If you want me to quote the whole thing and go over it word
by word, I'd love to.  In fact, it's kind of what I've offered, but since
there's been no response so far, I figure there's no interest and thus no
reason to keep doing so.

But now that you, like Adrie, have taken the bait.  Let's do it.


dmb:


> This is what I complained about yesterday, where the reader's interpretive
> "skills" are such that clear, explicit statement are completely reversed to
> mean very the opposite thing.
>
>
John:

You really fascinate me dave.  You really do.  That projection thing you do
just keeps on rearing it's head, over and over.  Are you actually
challenging my interpretive skills?  Because the way it seems to me is that
you define this in the most self-serving manner possible.  "Interpretive
skills" means "gets it the way dmb sees it" period, end of story.

By any objective measure, my interpretive skills are in the 99th
percentile.  That's just a fact.  But in light of your aspersion, it makes
me really wonder about you.

dmb:


> There's room for interpretation of course but to interpret "ridiculous" and
> "nonsense" to mean good or right or true is just plainly wrong.
>
>

John:

I told Adrie that I cut off the end of that snippet for a reason.  I respect
Pirsig, and I felt that putting his statement in at the end of that snippet,
would make him look foolish.  I vehemently disagree with his assesment of
Coleridge's point about Choice, and cut him some slack because one, he
plainly states that he's not following, and two,  he later at the end of the
text does an about face and declares, "this has really been a surprise.
This could be melded with the MoQ with very little effort".

What has always puzzled me dave, is the very great difficulty YOU seem to
have with intepreting these plain words.  Oh well.  We can't all be gifted.


dmb:


> What really baffles me, is how anyone can do this sort of thing without
> feeling ashamed or embarrassed. How does John figure that nobody will notice
> his self-serving editing choices? How does he figure that anyone will read
> Pirsig to be saying the very opposite of what he is saying? And what kind of
> arrogance does it take for John to claim that his own thinking is deep
> compared to Pirsig's shallow thinking?
>
>
John:

Again, with the projection.  What bothers you so much is my arrogance in
thinking my thinking is deep compared to yours.  That's your big problem.


dmb:


> It's really depressing.
>
>

I hear they have pills for that.  Maybe that'd help.  You sure need
something dude.


John