[MD] The Hero's journey

[Matt Kundert]

If there's a kind of confusion about the context of the post below, 
that's because (as it states in the info-dribble you get when hitting 
the Reply button to an email) it was written and sent on Nov. 6 to a 
post (in the conversation I was having with Dan that has since 
continued on) that Dave wrote earlier that day (Nov. 6).  I'm not 
sure the below is anything more than the bullshit Dave and I usually 
start slinging at each other when one or the other has gotten tired 
of the other's supposed antics, so I'm not sure it has anything to 
add to the conversation that has since moved on.

Matt

p.s.  This is the second time for this clarification post, because I 
stupidly sent it with _all_ of the post below, and its size is no doubt 
what kept it locked up for six days.  So, in a week or so, we'll likely 
see the above clarification again.

> From: pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:16:19 -0600
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Hero's journey
> 
> 
> DMB said:
> If I follow your thinking, intellectual patterns out of the natural 
> sciences tend to have a "flavor" of pre-existence. (People tend to 
> think that a lot of the stuff in "nature" was around before we 
> personally were.)" As Dan said, this is where "you seemed to be 
> saying that certain intellectual patterns pertaining to natural sciences 
> hold a higher value on account of 'stuff in nature' being around 
> before we personally were". That's what raised his intellectual 
> hackles. 
> 
> Matt:
> I guess I still don't see why the "'flavor' of pre-existence" is assumed 
> to go hand in hand with a higher value than other flavors.  (If I'm 
> being honest, I'd suggest that a purified MoQer wouldn't feel that 
> connection, but rather only someone with lingering SOMist instincts 
> would, or someone SOMist-hunting.  Which is why I assumed Dan 
> was doing the latter.  You,...I don't know about.  Normally I'd just 
> as well assume you don't have the lingering instincts, but I can't tell 
> whether you're simply recapitulating the conversation, or reapplying 
> the hackle-raising that Dan has since repealed because of my 
> clarification.  And if it's reapplying, that's kinda' like saying one's 
> hackles are still raised.  Which I don't get.)
> 
 blah blah blah