[MD] Drivel v MOQ

[118]

Mark responds to dmb's post below while still waiting for dmb to
provide some "personal insight" as to why Pirsig creates the
distinction between DQ and sq.

Many of us are past the basics that dmb refers to.  It is he (and
others) who keeps harping on the basics, as they understand them to
be.  It is time to break out of those endless circles and move
forward.  It is indeed his incorrigibility in claiming that he is the
master of MoQ and that the party line is the only way to go.  It is
this party line which has become stale and static.  It is time to move
on to what Pirsig considers the fringes of MoQ.  For only by expanding
such presentation will meaning be progressed.  Dmb's post is very
religious in the sense that he claims that the writings of Pirsig are
all that there is to MoQ.  He is beyond degenerate in this sense, and
is detrimental to the progress of MoQ.  Every philosophy is composed
of different modes for presentation.  Dmb's Hegelian attitude that MoQ
is complete and is the culmination of all philosophy on the subject to
date will only cause MoQ to die as an archaic idea in the annals of
philosophy.  We owe it to MoQ to discourage this attitude.

We need to move forward and not keep going over the same old ground
and same old fears.  The criticism presented by dmb towards others of
more enlightened views suggests a certain insecurity for moving
forward.  This is a messy thing while it is happening, no different
from empirical science where interpretations abound as it is forming
theories.  What survives is not that which is most dogmatically clung
to, but what turns out to be better.  There is no drive to betterness
by restricting the conversation to what some people feel comfortable
with.  It is with this in mind that I present the following quote from
Matt Kundert in his "Open letter Letter to New Participants in the
Discussion Groups" (M0Q.org).

"I’ve suggested tempering personal comments to reduce personal
insults, but there is one kind of “insult” that will grab people’s
attention without actually being an insult: offend their philosophical
instincts (which is stabilized by inertia) by being controversial.
There’s nothing a little well placed bombast in the middle of a
well-reasoned argument won’t do for your profile. If you can generate
a buzz, you’ll start to affect the direction of conversation. This
will raise the hairs on a few people’s necks, particularly if the
direction is away from them, but this is what philosophy is all about.
John Dewey called it “breaking the crust of convention.”

So let us move forward and break the crust of convention, and
destabilize that inertia that many still seem to be bound in.  Search
for that betterness; post with Arete!

Regards,
Mark

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:48 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark said to Andre:
>  Is your post below MoQ or drivel? Please explain why DQ has no staying power, it seems from your dissertation below that you have no idea.  Some explanation of your fundamental premise would be nice.
>
> dmb says:
> Andre and I have both been explaining this with lots of textual evidence for a long, long time. And we're definitely not the only ones.
> It's seems pretty clear that you and Marsha are cannot grasp this idea no matter how many times it's explained. Once or twice should be enough but it's been given dozens, maybe even hundreds of times.
>
> Andre has quoted Pirsig on this point many times.  This one, to take one of many examples, was posted in December of last year:
>
> "In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone (as you seem to be doing Marsha) and neglect static patterns of quality (as you seem to be doing Marsha). Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case ( listening Marsha?). Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is... Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness (!) that he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves" (LILA pp
>  124-5).
>
>
> dmb continues:
> There is never going be any progress until we can get past the basics. The difference between DQ and sq is the MOQ's first and most basic distinction but Mark and Marsha are completely stuck somewhere behind the the starting line and can not even begin to move forward. Like spoiled children, they're getting attention for all the wrong reasons. Their utter incorrigibility keeps the rest of us going round in circles by trying to get the basics across over and over and over again. And here, once again, Mark is acting like nobody ever had a good reason to dispute their incoherent drivel. This one piece of evidence should be enough for any reasonable person to grasp the point even if it were the only Pirsig they ever read. Does this not PROVE that they are not competent to discuss the MOQ? I think so.
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html