[MD] kill all intellectual patterns

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> A good assessment Arlo.
> Perhaps it's about time that the members of this list take back the
> initiative to express what it is that Pirsig is saying.
> It does need a concerted effort though - DMB is doing a good job countering
> the arguments of certain members but cannot do it on his own.

Hi Horse
Where does one start? It is obvious Mark has never read Lila, nor does
he intend to. If he has read ZMM it was a hundred years ago. He is
rude, disrespectful, and writes so much that the rest of us are
basically drowned out by the cacophony. I have tried engaging him only
to be insulted, as have most other contributors who know anything at
all about the MOQ. Like Bodvar, I do believe if folks just ignored him
he might go away but someone always responds to his idiocy.

> I have said that this list should be expressly about Pirsig's MoQ and not a
> mish-mash of poorly thought out 'in my opinion' nonsense.
> Pirsig is the best place to go for evidence of how the MoQ works and quotes
> supporting a position.

Absolutely. I agree. There is so much to explore in RMP's books and
subsequent writings. This nonsense about ignoring him is ludicrous.

>
> If others cannot support their position properly or dismiss Pirsig as of no
> consequence then they have no place on this list.
>
> Take back the list now or risk losing it to wooly-headed garbage.

Not sure, but it seems to be already lost... that is all I have read
since taking a hiatus some time ago. Trash.

>
> It's your choice.

I am willing to contribute more but I am unwilling to be abused for
it. Mark, Ron, Marsha... they all have a habit of luring me into a
discussion only to break it off in my ass. Tired of it. Who wants to
put up with that crap? Not me. Ron even took to writing me abusive
emails off-list threatening to send a bunch of "niggas" over to my
house to put a cap in my ass. They had better be big and ugly as the
riot gun I keep in the closet holds 9 shells and does its own talking.

Anyway, I feel much the same as Andre. I would dearly love to engage
in intelligent discussions concerning the MOQ, and I have had the
pleasure of doing so in the past. But there are always those who seem
intent on sniping those discussions in an effort to derail them. Ron
with his goofy nonsense with who's on first, Mark with his stupidity,
and Marsha asking for clarification and then telling me in so many
words to fuck off.

Seriously people... if you don't have anything of value to add, shut
the hell up. The list might actually attract folk who know a little
something about the MOQ.

Dan

>
> Horse
>
>
>
> On 26/11/2012 16:10, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR wrote:
>>
>> [DMB]
>> The first one is that Western intellectuals cannot escape subject-object
>> metaphysics and the second is that the MOQ is something other than Pirsig's
>> philosophy as presented in his books.
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> Right. I've been saying for quite sometime that Pirsig's rhetorical use of
>> "the MOQ says" as a placeholder for "I say" continues to be a source of
>> great confusion for some here. I think it'd be a nice experiment if Horse
>> set up a filter that would replace the string "the MOQ" in all posts with
>> "Pirsig". This "I am here to discuss the MOQ and I don't care what Pirsig
>> said" is bizarre rhetoric that really only evidences very muddled thinking.
>> There is, of course, nothing wrong with proposing counter ideas, or
>> disagreeing or expanding, and if we have an eye towards a larger, emergent
>> field of related theories, there should always be an emphasis of clarity and
>> precision on what was said, what is being agreed with, what is being
>> disagreed with, and why one's ideas provide a better overall metaphysics
>> than the ones it is diverging from.
>>
>> Marsha is in a difficult spot, because she still adheres to Bo's MOQ where
>> the entire intellectual level IS subject-object metaphysics. She can only
>> allude to this, of course, but this reconstruction of Pirsig informs all her
>> ideas here, it leaves her really with little to do BUT attack 'intellect' as
>> 'the problem'. This is reason why Mark and Marsha pretty much talk to
>> themselves (apart from attempts by you and others to address their
>> misconceptions). Mark is the classic "my ignorance is just as good as your
>> knowledge" case study (with love to Asimov), which is why together they
>> amount to pretty much a constant bombast attacking those on this list that
>> have/had direct contact with Pirsig, and (gasp!) dare to cite and offer
>> quotes from Pirsig in a forum dedicated to discussing and understanding
>> Pirsig's ideas.
>>
>> Andre lamented the direction of things here, and the constant volume from
>> those who clearly do not understand Pirsig and really only serve here to
>> shout down anyone who actually spends time on Pirsig's ideas. Why do you
>> think people like David Granger never participate, even intermittently? Why
>> do you think that of all the people presenting and behind MSU's upcoming
>> Pirsig conference, only DMB spends any time here? Why do you think Ant, who
>> is friends with Pirsig and who completed a PhD through interaction with
>> Pirsig, doesn't spend a lot of time here anymore? I can say with pretty much
>> certainty its not just because of the nonsense and continual misconceptions,
>> but the bombast that meets any attempt to provide clarity to those who most
>> obviously need it. And, of course, the absence of these voices is exactly
>> what they prefer, since anyone with authority or insight into Pirsig's ideas
>> is just a 'static intellectual preacher'. But its created a vacuous space
>> where anyone who a
>>   ctually did come here to talk and learn about Pirsig would be met only
>> with the loud voices of those who understand Pirsig the least.
>>
>> [DMB]
>> Since all philosophers are stuck in SOM, all thinking is hopelessly
>> illusory, all concepts are inherently reified, then nothing counts as
>> excellence in thought and Pirsig's words can never count as evidence for
>> Pirsig's intended meaning. You see the problem with that?
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> I certainly do. And I imagine that aside from Marsha and Mark most do as
>> well. As you pointed out, if all philosophy is SOM, why even be here in the
>> first place? Why join an intellectual philosophical discussion about
>> Pirsig's ideas if you find intellectual discourse repugnant, philosophy
>> hopelessly missing the point of life, and Pirsig to be uninformative on his
>> own ideas?
>>
>> I get that, for some, feeding of animosity is kind of a psychological
>> rush. Trolling, is of course, a highly popular activity for the bored and
>> uninsightful. But seriously, when that becomes the bulk of the stuff here,
>> what's the point? Right now, I'd say the trolls are winning, since more than
>> 95% of what I see come through are the trolls and the conflict they are
>> hoping to create. To be fair, I don't think Marsha is trolling as much as
>> struggling to interject the old SOLAQI thing, and looking for excuses to
>> attack those who have, rightly, rejected it as a representation of Pirsig's
>> ideas. But Mark, he's nothing but a troll, amigo.
>>
>> In any event, don't be discouraged.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
>
> 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


http://www.danglover.com