[MD] The Johnottations

Wed Nov 17 13:51:28 PST 2010

edit

Adrie said to John:
Here you deliberately "forgot" a piece, John. The paragraph's end is Mr.
Pirsig's concluding sentence, you left it out for obvious reasons

This is it, the complete paragraph WITH PIRSIG'S CONCLUDING END SENTENCE
recontextualised again.

"Where is this identity to be found? At this point Coleridge is at the same
door that Phaedrus was at, but he doesn’t have the key of Quality with him.
So he answers: 'Only in the selfconsciousness of a spirit is there the
required identity of object and of representation.' What in the world is
selfconsciousness of a spirit? But if the spirit is originally the identity
of subject and object, it must in some sense dissolve this identity in order
to become conscious of itself as object. Ridiculous. Self-consciousness,
therefore, cannot arise except through an act of will, How did will get in
here? and 'freedom How did freedom get in here? must be assumed as a *ground
*of philosophy, and can never be deduced from it'. The spirit becomes a
subject knowing itself as object only through 'the act of constructing
itself objectively to itself'.  This is the sort of nonsense that has
inspired logical positivism."

 "THIS IS THE SORT OF NONSENSE THAT HAS INSPIRED LOGICAL POSITIVISM"
(Pirsig, Emphasis is Adrie's)

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. 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.

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

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?

It's really depressing.

---------------------------------------
Adrie
I think there is more behind it , Dave.

The fact that Frederick Copleston himself was a jesuit (Thomist) made me
think,
Frederick Copleston himself was a Jesuit, a thomist , A disciple of Thomas
de Aquino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomist

On this page, Quote,"The Second Vatican Council described Thomas's system as
the "Perennial Philosophy"

John is a big fan of theism, disguised theism, occult theism, etc, so i was
thinking
maybe he will go for parroting in Copleston himself,....nahh, probably not.,
Not weird enough.
Did some googling-, Coleridge himself , clearly dismissed by Pirsig in the
annotations,seems to be a religious fruitcake, known to be suffering a
BIPOLAR personality disorder, developed  a religion around his own
personality
(Like John is), and had plans to build a colony a la Jonestown in French
Guyana...All property should be common goods and stuff.

Made me think, John is always wining about community's, building community's
Having a little community, the community here, etc, he is transcripting
Coleridge's home-made idealism, aswere the moq is rejecting idealism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Coleridge  ( pay "attention" to Bipolar)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder     ( for experts)

So combined , John is stealing him a personality together from these 3 or 4
pages on wiki. He is inventing a new sort of personality disorder.
easy to profile him, 3 or 4 wikipages and you'r at it

So of course he left the endsentence out, Pirsig's endconclusion, not very
interesting to lead us to this eh?...

This is one of coleridge

"At the same time Coleridge combined his enthusiasm for Hartley with
religiuos faith, and he came to think that the scientific understanding is
inadequate
as a key to reality and to speak of the role of intuition and the importance
of
moral expirience".

Burp.
Yours sincerely , honest john,oops, Adrie

2010/11/17 david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>

>
> Adrie said to John:
> Here you deliberately "forgot" a piece, John. The paragraph's end is Mr.
> Pirsig's concluding sentence, you left it out for obvious reasons
>
> This is it, the complete paragraph WITH PIRSIG'S CONCLUDING END SENTENCE
> recontextualised again.
>
> "Where is this identity to be found? At this point Coleridge is at the same
> door that Phaedrus was at, but he doesn’t have the key of Quality with him.
> So he answers: 'Only in the selfconsciousness of a spirit is there the
> required identity of object and of representation.' What in the world is
> selfconsciousness of a spirit? But if the spirit is originally the identity
> of subject and object, it must in some sense dissolve this identity in order
> to become conscious of itself as object. Ridiculous. Self-consciousness,
> therefore, cannot arise except through an act of will, How did will get in
> here? and 'freedom How did freedom get in here? must be assumed as a *ground
> *of philosophy, and can never be deduced from it'. The spirit becomes a
> subject knowing itself as object only through 'the act of constructing
> itself objectively to itself'.  This is the sort of nonsense that has
> inspired logical positivism."
>
>  "THIS IS THE SORT OF NONSENSE THAT HAS INSPIRED LOGICAL POSITIVISM"
> (Pirsig, Emphasis is Adrie's)
>
>
> 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. 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.
>
> There's room for interpretation of course but to interpret "ridiculous" and
> "nonsense" to mean good or right or true is just plainly wrong.
>
> 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?
>
> It's really depressing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>

-- 
parser