[MD] Changes in 2011

[John Carl]

It seems to me, dmb, that you are the one who evades contrary evidence in an
intellectually dishonest fashion.  I've posted Pirsig's response to
Bradley's Absolute Idealism many, many times and you've always evaded the
plain truth of the matter.   I'll offer his off-the-cuff synopsis again, for
those onlooking:

So It has really been a shock to see how close Bradley is to the MOQ. Both
he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called "The Perennial
Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because it happens to be true.
Bradley has given an excellent description of what the MOQ calls Dynamic
Quality and an excellent rational justification for its intellectual
acceptance.  It and the MOQ can be spliced together with no difficulty into
a broader explanation of the same thing.
That's not the only evidence I have to counter your accusation, but it's
certainly the plainest and easiest to understand.  It completely refutes
your charge that:

"John persists in pushing the theistic notions of Absolute Idealism, despite
the fact that Pirsig's explicit comments to the contrary have been presented
to him many times."

And every time I offer it to you, you ignore it and me in the hopes that
I'll just go away.  For you certainly have no real logical arguments of your
own to counter me or you'd have offered them long ago.  So far, all I've got
is the quote on "the MoQ is anti-theistic in this regard" and "I don't like
the connotations of 'absolute'.  Both those statements I have dealt with at
length and in detail, and thus as far as I'm concerned, this argument is
over and you have plainly lost.

"Childish behavior" is screwing your eyes shut in the hopes that the scary
stuff goes away.  That's what YOU have been doing dave, not me.  So I guess
it's more of that "projection" thing that you do.

Over and over and over.


> dmb says:
> The line I'm drawing is much simpler and much less dramatic. There are
> those who think that ignoring contrary evidence and evading questions is a
> very serious problem, who think that's obviously a violation of decency and
> fair-play. Then there are those who don't even see what you mean by that. To
> some, willful ignorance and evasive answers are just a sign of plain,
> old-fashioned incompetence. Others look at this same behavior and think that
> they just have a "different" point of view.
>
>

John:

See?  Perfect example.  I always deal with any issues in logical
argumentation.  That's what I deem "intellectual discourse".  You're the one
who who uses insults and evasive maneuvers because you have nothing with
which to counter my ripostes.  You only get the chutzpah to continually make
the same lame charges, because I'm not the cut-throat that you are and I
don't repeatedly hammer you with your own weak argumentative skills.  That's
because I'm polite AND I do appreciate your participation in this forum,
despite your childish tactics and I don't want to discourage you or chase
you off.

Again.



>
> John replied:
> Well here, I can't take it personally anymore, because I'm always willing
> to face up to answering questions and "the relevant evidence".  Furthermore,
> I always say what I mean.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I think that's not true. I've seen what you do when presented with Pirsig's
> comments on theism and Absolutism. I think you've been intellectually
> dishonest and otherwise unreasonable. So I just gave up on the possibility
> of having any kind of real conversation with you. Plus you're always too
> interested in your popularity or status. Sometimes I wonder if you're just
> some high school kid posing as a grow-up husband and father.
>
>
>
John:

Right.  That's how you imagine it in your head, since you're a student
posing as a teacher.  You project your own insecurities upon me.  I've seen
it a hundred times.   Have you ever considered how illogical it is for you
to point out to me that I portray myself in ways that make me look like a
white trash loser, and at the same time charge that I am mostly concerned
about my status?    Do you notice any discrepancy in those two accusations
dave?  Or does logic just completely mystify you and like the child hiding
under it's bed when there's a fire in the house, you squeeze your eyes shut
and hope for the best?



> John:
> Dave, for years I've cried out, begged and pleaded for some decent
> conversation with you and it's always ad hominen attacks and derogatory
> evasions that I get in response.  So I'll take your complaint here as a Mea
> Culpa and a resolution to go forth and improve.  Let's resolve in the New
> Year to creating some decent conversation and philosophical inquiry into
> politics of Value.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> John, all you done here is given me MORE reasons to think that "some decent
> conversation with you" is pretty much impossible. If I charge you with
> ignoring the evidence, that is not a ad hominem attack. It's a criticism of
> your conduct AS a conversationalist, AS a thinker. That charge is aimed
> directly at the lack of validity in your arguments. And this reversal you've
> preformed (above) in just another in a long line of responses in which you
> say to me, "you're just projecting". That sir, amounts to a school-yard
> taunt. I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and
> sticks to you".



John:

Well, the "projection" charge stems from a post where you basically admitted
that that's what you were doing.  You were the one that started the
conversation about "projection" and then admitted that a criticism I
responded to from you, was actually about yourself.  That helped me see that
this is a persistent issue with you and since you've never dealt with it, it
never  goes away.

But obviously I've been the one to seek rapproachment and dialogue, I even
do it here and in the paragraph above.  And equally obviously, you are the
one to evade and refuse, onlist and off, over and over and I have stacks and
stacks of your refusal to discuss the issues intelligently on my hard drive
(well, technically, in Gmail's hard drives) and the truth of the matter is
so often that the accusations you make against me are so ridiculous that
they have to have come from somewhere and the most likely explanation is the
one I offer - they come from your own head and frame of reference.

dmb:


> If I say this response is childish bullshit, that is not an ad hominem
> attack. That charge goes directly at the lack of validity in your response.
> And more broadly, are you really going to dispute the obvious assertion that
> intellectual quality demands, among other things, honestly facing the
> evidence and taking responsibility for the claims and assertions we make?


John:

Of course I'm not disputing that assertion!  I'm just dumbfounded you can
make it against ME when it's so obvious that I'm not the one with a great
big academic chip on his shoulder.  I'm not the one who has an important
reputation to uphold.  I'm not the one afraid to dig into the heart of any
matter.  I always take responsibility for my claims and assertions and I
back them up.  Sometimes I find on further reflection to need to modify my
stance.  That's what I appreciate about dialogue and discourse - other
people can see weakness in our arguments that we can't always see
ourselves.  It seems obvious to me that YOU are the one who hates that
fact.  Your are the one who can't honestly face up to the evidence.  But
what can I do about that?  Nothing.  It's your choice, dave.

Perhaps Adrie is right.  You and he should probably go sit on a mountain or
that island he mentioned and reinforce each other's greatness of vision and
clarity of thought.  Or maybe Horse should just kick everybody off the list
who doesn't think like dmb.  THEN the Moq would have unity and clarity,
right?

Yeah.  That sounds real exciting.  Good luck with that.

John