[MD] Taking words Seriously

[david buchanan]

Matt said:

...I don't get how I've rendered DQ as trivial, inert, or meaningless in my version of the glasses analogy, or train analogy.  
 
...I don't see what is "jarring" or "incongruous," as you say, between the work Pirsig sees DQ as handling and my version of what that work is. 

...I can't help but perceive that as a superficial rhetorical difference in the words, and not the conceptual position I was describing.   

...I'm not sure I've obviously screwed up this relationship,..  

...I'm unclear where the pushing occurs.  

...I do not see how the slogans in the last two sentences are unavailable to either of my analogies:  

...I don't understand how my analogies can disbar those conceptual understandings.  

...I'm not sure I can't take it into account, only that I haven't yet done so though also expressed a  dislike for it.  I'm not trying to be cagey, only precise.  

...I haven't a sense of _how_ you've leveled the hot stove analogy  _as_ an objection.  

...you can't take advantage either of things I've sensed as potential problems, but not given any definition to.  It would be a boon to me if you did help give that definition, but I haven't yet a sense of what that shape is.


dmb says:
I see a pattern in your reply, Matt. My editing job shows you what I see. Sure, it's a bit rude to complain in this way but I think it has the advantage of being exceptionally clear. If we're trying to be precise, I think "disingenuous" is probably the best word for your response. That word summarizes my complaint. I'll just leave it at that.