[MD] The Tao of Quality - Verse 2

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Krimel:

Nope, that's pure drivel. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're a very bad reader too. Apparently, you cannot see the most obvious parallels in conception and this whole exercise is a steaming pile of nonsense.


Krimel replied

..., I advise you to watch your mouth.

dmb says:
Or else what? You'll drown me in more of your drivel? It's disgusting but I can swim, you clueless blowhard.


dmb said Krimel:
The opening line of the Tao Te Ching says, "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao" and in ZAMM he translates this into, "The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality". The Tao, like Quality in ZAMM or DQ in Lila, cannot be named because names are static and Dynamic Quality is not. DUH! ...Pirsig is obviously quite consistent in this and the fact that you can't see such an obvious point only serves to make you look like an idiot.  



Krimel said (absolutely nothing relevant to the criticism or the textual evidence supporting it):
...You just named three things defined them as being unnamable and the declared them to be the same based on your definition. This is supposed to be philosophy not magic. Pirsig does not say this, you do. What entitles you to speak for Pirsig this way?


dmb says:
What entitles me to speak for Pirsig? Are you trying to get me to brag about all the kind things that Pirsig has said to me and written about me? And why is it even a question of entitlement when I'm just tapping on a keyboard like every other participant? Actually, I don't feel entitled. But I've done the work, earned the degree, jumped through the hoops and even earned a little money at it. Yes, I believe that I understand what I'm talking about and the feedback from those who are competent to judge (like Pirsig) have said so - usually in very flattering terms. What does your disagreement with them say about the quality of your judgement? It ain't good, that's for sure. But that's not relevant to substance of the matter.

As far as the actual points of contention go, it seems to me that you are not only obtuse, you're also a liar. You have deleted the parallel quotes from Pirsig and then you have the balls to make declarations about what Pirsig did and did not say? Wow. What an asshole!

You can continue with these dishonest evasions. You can continue to pretend that textual evidence is meaningless. But you have to realize that I'm not fooled by this one bit. I think what you're doing is totally contempible.


Pirsig said: "The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality."

Pirsig said: "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions."

Pirsig said: "Dynamic Quality, the source of all things, the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, always appears as 'spur of the moment'."

Pirsig said: "This preintellectual reality is what Phædrus felt he had properly identified as Quality."


If you're not able to detect a pattern here, Krimel, then you are too stupid to have this conversation.