[MD] An Open Letter to the MOQ Discussion Group

[118]

Hi Dan,
Throughout your attack of me below, I do not read any specific argument against what I post, NONE.  Is this what you mean by discussion?  If you feel that what I say is inconsistent with MoQ then please explain to me why.

I do not think you understand what I am writing.  If you have a problem with something, all you need to do is explain it to me and perhaps we can have and understanding.

This constant bashing without explaining the problem with my rhetoric is unbecoming of someone such as yourself.

Could you be more specific on what topics you would like discussed.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On May 13, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:12 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> I do not quite understand what your expectations are.  You claim not
>> to be interested in philosophy, yet you complain if the philosophy is
>> not the kind you are expecting.   It is simply not sufficient to claim
>> a "mire of idiocy" without explaining what you mean.  Perhaps you can
>> give me an example of this mire.  I deal with many aspects of MoQ.  I
>> am not attacking people, I am just stating my opinion.  Many are just
>> short pieces that do not require response.  They are just ideas.
> 
> Mark:
>    The use of words such as "the undifferentiated aesthetic flux" is
> misleading,
>    in my opinion, for that is not what Quality is.  We could call DQ that.
>    The Tao may be more accurate, but the Tao is more fundamental than
>    Quality.  The Tao means "the Reason", or "the Way". From the Tao
>    comes the one, which is Quality.
> 
> Dan comments:
> These kind of comments make me think you've never even read ZMM, or if
> you have, you need to read it again. It appears you are making this
> stuff up as you go along rather than making any kind of effort to
> understand Robert Pirsig's work. And I don't understand why anyone
> would do that. And so I get frustrated.
> 
>> 
>> In good faith I attempted to start a discussion on Plato's Good to see
>> what people thought about it.  I did not see you chiming in, and I
>> figured this was because you are not interested in philosophy, which
>> is fine by me.  As it turns out, I get abused for bringing the subject
>> up.  Not any arguments about Quality and the Good (except maybe from
>> Ron), instead I hear proclamations on how stupid I am, like I am on
>> some playground or something.   This does not seem like a
>> philosophical discussion to me.
> 
> Dan:
> Well, again, a person needs to form a solid understanding of just what
> they're talking about before they start tearing down the house. You
> didn't do this. Instead, you make statements like these:
> 
> Mark:
> 
> Ant, tell me what the problem with Plato was.  His "Good"
> is the same thing as Pirsig's Quality.
> 
> Ant replied:
> 
> Not according to Pirsig they're not.  I don't know whether you really
> believe this statement of yours or just haven't read the material in
> question            but (to paraphrase) Pirsig states that his Quality
> is fundamentally Dynamic and indefinable while Plato's Good is a
> static Form that (supposedly) can be defined.  Plato's "Republic"
> refers to the Good in a couple of places and what he says here does
> tend to support Pirsig's view.  In my honest opinion.
> 
> Mark:
> Ant, of course they cannot be the same thing since neither of them are
> anything at all, remember?  I am speaking of the concepts of each.  No
> two concepts are ever entirely the same, and you know that.  So, I am
> not shifting my argument one bit; that you would think so would imply
> that you think Quality is some thing.  If this is true, then you need
> to begin at the beginning.
> 
> Dan comments:
> 
> I could go on, but can't you see how idiotic you appear? First, you
> claim "His "Good"
> is the same thing as Pirsig's Quality" and then you turn around and
> say "Ant, of course they cannot be the same thing since neither of
> them are anything at all, remember?"
> 
> You make no sense! This is what I mean by dragging others down into a
> mire of idiocy. Anthony has made a real effort to educate you on some
> of your misconceptions regarding the MOQ and all you do is offer
> insulting bullshit in return.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Now you are complaining.  What exactly are you complaining about?
>> What is your agenda?  How is it that you would like for MoQ to be
>> discussed?  What specifically would you like to see accomplished in
>> this forum?  I am willing to listen.  These are difficult subjects to
>> put in words for some of us.  If I do not know what about my arguments
>> are incorrect, and all I get is complaints that I am even presenting
>> an opinion, I am left in the dark.  Be specific so that I can
>> understand.
> 
> Dan:
> I would like an intelligent discussion... one predicated on the
> understanding of Robert Pirsig's work. That is what this discussion
> group is supposed to be about! There is nothing to be accomplished and
> I have no agenda... to ask such asinine questions makes me wonder what
> you're doing here in the first place. You should understand this
> before posting here. The fact is though that you do not. Need I say
> more?
> 
>> 
>> How about you post some topic that you find to be of high quality, so
>> that I can see what you mean.  Pick any topic within MoQ that you
>> want, I am more than happy to respond to it.  But please don't
>> complain in some vague manner.  If you do not agree with what I write,
>> then provide me with a rebuttal, or simply ignore it.   That is what
>> discussion is all about.  Discussion is not about complaining that you
>> do not like the discussion. If you go to a concert and complain that
>> everybody is too noisy, and this happens to every time you go to a
>> concert, you need to take some responsibility for this.
> 
> Dan:
> See. I see no need for this kind of nonsense here. You'd be more than
> happy to respond with insults and high-handedness. You must have
> forgotten our 'discussions' in the past like you've forgotten anything
> you've read concerning Robert Pirsig's work.
> 
> Look at how you responded to Anthony! Who the hell do you think you
> are to talk to him in that manner? And you've never made the least
> effort to engage me in a half-way intelligent discussion in all the
> years we've been here together... all you've ever done is to insult
> me. And now you expect me to offer up a topic for discussion?
> Seriously?
> 
>> 
>> I do not want to see you leave since I learn things from you.  While I
>> am sure you don't learn things from me, there must be some that you do
>> learn from.
>> 
>> Try to explain yourself with constructive criticism.  I can always
>> learn.  But let's drop all this animosity if somebody does not agree
>> with somebody else.  Let us try to be civil and use rational
>> arguments.  Nobody is a threat to anybody else.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Try going back and reading some of your own posts, Mark, before
> offering me advice. I don't need it.
> 
> Thank you anyway,
> 
> Dan
> http://www.danglover.com
> 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