[MD] Good Mystic, Bad Mystic.

[David Harding]

Hi dmb(and Marsha mentioned),

> 
> Marsha asked:  Are those quotes somehow suppose to represent some kind of evidence? 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Yes. If the goal is understanding Pirsig's MOQ, then quotes like these are the best possible evidence. What could be more relevant? More specifically, these quotes tell us what Pirsig thinks about the problem with traditional rationality and his own version of truth and intellectual quality. OBVIOUSLY, these quotes were selected and presented as evidence against your distortions, against your confused anti-intellectualism.
> To complain about the use of textual evidence is truly bizarre. It exposes a rather profound ignorance as to what can even constitute a good argument. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that clueless.
> 
> You can honestly say that reading this collection of quotes DOESN't explain anything? You really can't see why these quotes were selected? C'mon, nobody is THAT stupid. I'm going to generously assume that you're just a liar.
> 


That's right.  She's constantly demanding 'definitions' and complaining about 'referencing' and 'context'.   That is - she's implying that "of course your definitions could never capture reality so I'm going to make you squirm trying to recapture it".   She talks to us all as if we're absolutist intellectuals about truth and that her brand of mystic relativism is the answer.    To prove her point it seems whenever she is forced to explain an idea of her own she'll keep demanding definitions or complain about context.  'I mean we all know they're relative!'    She just keeps fighting these imaginary absolutists to wriggle out of ever confronting ideas of her own.  

If Marsha is reading this… SOM has two truths - Absolute or relative.   The MOQ has value then truth.  If an idea isn't any good then we don't use it.  Is it really so complicated?

-David.