[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[John Carl]

Arlo,

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:27 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

[John]
> Arlo, old friend.  I wonder if you'd mind quoting the source on this.  I've
> racked my library and scoured Lila, ZAMM and all the writings of Pirsig
> within
> my grasp, but nowhere is dmb mentioned in the holy writ.  Perhaps the
> apocrypha
> then?
>
> [Arlo]
> C'mon, John. You know that was not what anyone said, nor is it anywhere
> near
> being the point.
>
>
John:

Well maybe it wasn't your point, Arlo, but it sure as hell is mine. On what
authority do I take it that dmb and Ant are the only ones who get it, or are
closest to getting it?  And does that mean forever and ever?   What if some
new guy comes along?  Should he shut up just because dmb doesn't like him?
How is that being open to DQ?  I actually do have a serious issue with this
formulation of yours.




> [John]
> ya gotta appreciate his enthusiasm for Pirsig and James and his devotion to
> the
> cause... so there's that.  But Quality in thought and expression?  Not so
> much.
>
> [Arlo]
> Really? I think DMB is clear and very explanatory. I've never had any issue
> with that.
>

John:

Well you can very be clearly wrong, but clearness isn't the point then, is
it.  What bothers me the most is his inability to look at where he is, or
might be wrong.  That's just poor quality through and through.


>
> Look at it this way. If I wrote over and over that Marsha had a shallow
> understanding of Pirsig's ideas, and it was revealed that Pirsig considered
> her
> on of the foremost philosophers of his ideas, I'd certainly take a step
> back
> and wonder what I was missing.
>
> Alright, this is now getting a bit too drawn out. The "meta-narrative" here
> is
> overwhelming the narrative, and that's not right.
>
>
And the arbiter of right being???

Hmm... I am starting to sound a bit like Marsha :-)