[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[david buchanan]

Steve said to dmb:
Rather than make any argument in defense of the notion that we can be closer to or further from DQ, you simply quote Pirsig expressing his support for the idea. Since this isn't a democracy or a popularity contest but rather a philosophical discussion, whether or not you or Pirsig thinks so is irrelevant to whether or not there is good reason to think so. What I keep asking you for is the reasoning, and it seems that you are either unwilling or unable to give it.

dmb says:

Apparently we can't even agree about the meaning of words like "reasoning" and "evidence". If dozens of explanations quoted from half a dozen scholars don't count as valid evidence and philosophical reasoning, then nothing would count. If you think presenting textual evidence from the author is the same as waging a popularity contest, then you are a very unreasonable person. 



dmb said to Steve:
Okay, I'll bite. Who asserted this dubious idea? Was it Flimsy the Strawman, perhaps? Guess I can always trust you to quote him.



Steve:
Why do you assume that I must be disagreeing with you when I make this claim about my doubts? The fact is that I don't know what you think about Enlightenment and would be interested to know. What do you think it is?



dmb says:
I don't assume you're disagreeing with me on that point. I assume you are disagreeing with nobody at all. The straw man represents nobody's position, which is why it is so completely pointless to discuss such a position. You are expressing doubts about a claim that nobody. What's the point in that? To make enlightenment sound silly, I suppose, because you hate the idea that you're missing something very big about the MOQ and thereby missing something big about your own freedom and development. It's not that you disagree - because that would first require comprehension - so much as you resent the challenge for egotistical reasons. That's why you pick ridiculous nits about taking the glasses off, convert Pirsig's statements about uninterpreted experience into Platonism, treat values as law-like determining factors and otherwise distort everything the man says. Your posts are one, long sickening display of desperate egotism.