[MD] What's up?

[david buchanan]

I think Dan said:
...What bothers me about that is someone just coming to the group would tend to believe that is the caliber of dialogue here, and frankly I am ashamed to be part of it. 

dmb says:
Yes, and I think that is a very serious problem. Suppose there is some bright budding philosophy student that discovers Pirsig's work and then shows up here. There could be hundreds of such people. Who knows? In the last year or so I've seen what a proper discussion group looks like and, sadly, this place looks nothing like a functioning group. By comparison to what goes on elsewhere, this place has become a joke. It's a rotten, shameful thing and Pirsig certainly deserves better. 


David Harding said (i think):
At the moment they [newbies] can be pointed in very wrong directions…  This is the main reason why I'd argued for Mark and Marsha's removal a while back… I'm sure this is why dmb argues with Marsha constantly.  But how do we handle the Marks and Marsha's and Joe's? Kick them off?    ... Is it really that important for newbies to get only the best? This is how things are.  Is shielding them from crazy ideas really all that much of a good thing?  It's ideal yes, but at the same time - dealing with crazy ideas helps to keep things in perspective.  And with people like dmb constantly showing an alternative to whatever Marsha says I think that helps to keep things in perspective as well.


dmb says:
Dealing with crazy ideas? I think that's too generous, actually. Excepted for the quoted words of others, there is nothing from Marsha or Mark that could rightly be called an "idea", crazy or otherwise. My attempts to correct Marsha's assertions, as you may have noticed, usually consist in explaining how and why one should not equate opposed terms or oppose equal terms. It's not really even a philosophical dispute or a battle of ideas because these corrections barely rise above the level of a grammar lesson! Newbies don't need the best but neither should they wade into a sea of gross incompetence. I guarantee that this bunch will scare off any discerning person. Anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag will read a few posts full of their incoherent drivel and simply go elsewhere. 


David H said to Dan (or vice versa):
I mean just look at what happened when dmb attempted linking of our discussion to negative and positive liberty - we both saw straight through that… He had no response really and that was the end of it.


dmb says:
Is that what happened? Hmmm. It was not intended as a link to your discussion. It's just that your discussion prompted me to make a point. From my perspective, you never did get that point and things quickly turned ugly. So I let it go. But I remain convinced that the point is valid.


Dan said (i think):
To me, philosophy isn't hard. It is the philosphology that's hard, the study of philosophy. I don't get it. I've tried to read James and Hegel and Kant and I find it is impossibly dry. I wonder when they were writing those words of theirs if they ever thought anyone would ever read them. I guess that's why I am drawn to Robert Pirsig's works... 


dmb says:
I was slightly traumatized when they made us read Hegel but I think that exposure to philosophical ideas will almost certainly improve anyone's appreciation and understanding of Pirsig's work. There are much easier ways to learn about philosophical ideas than slogging through German idealism in the original. You don't even have to read anything. There are free courses from top Universities at the iTunes store, especially "iTunes University", and there are plenty of free philosophy podcasts at the iTunes store too. Youtube probably has a million philosophy-related videos to watch for free. A lot of it is downright entertaining so that it doesn't feel like work at all. There are gazillions of good lectures by people who know what they're talking about. Why wouldn't you want to hear that? What kind of music lover listens to only one band?