[MD] An Open Letter to the MOQ Discussion Group

[118]

Seriously dmb, there is nothing to be caught in.  This is rhetoric
remember.  You have to read the context, not just quote a sentence.
Both are concepts, so they are not exactly the same, but there are
many more similarities than differences.  Both are representing the
same thing in different ways as far as I am concerned.

I am consistent throughout.  I am not fabricating arguments, I am
speaking of things as I truly see them.  If you can point to some
reasons why you think Plato's Good is entirely different from Quality
(without simply saying the Pirsig says so), then I will entertain your
argument.  But what you state below is not very proper for a
philosopher.

There seems to be some kind of a witch hunt going on here, and I am
not sure why.  I don't get a cogent argument of disagreement, all i
get is anger, and some kind of psychological profiling (as if that
means something in MoQ).  Please explain this anger to me, perhaps we
will find that we have more in common with MoQ than we do not.

My back to the beginning was in response to a similar comment given
first by Ant.  Who is being abusive here?

Wrote the book, huh?  Do yo think that philosphers did not disagree
with W. James, just because he was William James?  Do you not think
that W. James did not disagree with others?  Are there letters from
William James calling others idiots and arrogant and ignorant?  I
assume he is your role model.  Do you agree with these disparaging
letters of James'?  This is philosophy for Christs sake, not some
religion that has a book with everything already written.

I am a little disappointed with the philosophical argument that you
put forth in your post below, I think you can do better if you
disagree with me.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:53 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark said to Dan:
> ... 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.
>
> dmb says:
>
> The complaints from Dan (and Horse) are quite clearly explained, Mark. You've been caught red handed.
>
> Mark said:
> Ant, tell me what the problem with Plato was.  His "Good" is the same thing as Pirsig's Quality.
> [AND]
>
> Ant, of course they cannot be the same thing since neither of them are anything at all, remember? ...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.
>
> dmb continues:
> When these guys call you on it, on this obvious nonsense, you have the nerve to cop a condescending attitude and tell the guys who literally wrote the book on the MOQ that they need to go back to the beginning.
>
> Again, this combination of arrogance and ignorance is totally outrageous. And the denials about what's obvious are just as maddening.
>
> It's like pissing on a picnic. It spoils the party and it's embarrassing.
>
>
>
> 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