[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[david buchanan]

In an interview with Kronos magazine published in March 2011, Wikipedia says, Ray Brassier denied that there is any such thing as a 'speculative realist movement' and firmly distanced himself from those who continue to attach themselves to the brandname:
"The ‘speculative realist movement’ exists only in the imaginations of a group of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: actor-network theory spiced with pan-psychist metaphysics and morsels of process philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with Deleuze’s remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity." --- Ray Brassier, the author of "After Finitude".




David Morey said to Arlo:
...So how many people here agree with Dan, Arlo and DMB, and how many can see the problems I am raising? This argument can be read in the book After Finitude in full, as it is the same one Speculative Realism raises against all corelationism, and forcing it down the plug hole of history,   ...check out After Finitude if you want to come up with a less floored position and then come back to me. If you find the real messiah let me know, I'm just your very naughty nonsense spotting friend trying to help you raise your game. But you are not interested it seems. Shame on you!

Arlo said to D Morey:
Dan wondered if you're suffering some sort of meltdown. It seems that way to me too. What you're doing is trying to skirt the valid (and precise) criticisms about your ideas, why they evidence a misunderstanding of Pirsig (by multiple people), and why they are inherently a SOM perspective ("SOM" used in the correct way, by the way), by throwing sand in the bull's eyes (to you the ZMM analogy). After weeks of being shown exactly where you SOM misunderstandings are, you accuse everyone else of being "SOM" (I call this the Great Pee Wee Maneuver, its used quite a bit out of desperation).
> >
> >I can't say I'm surprised, Pirsig's ideas are rather revolutionary and the single biggest mistake I've seen over the years is people trying to dress up their SOM views with MOQ clothing. And while you seemed absolutely intent before about overlaying an SOM (i.e., "patterns have to exist in experience before you then go on to conceptualise them") perspective with Pirsig's terminology, it seems that also has a psychological rabidness to it.
> >
> >Its clear you've hit a "messiah point", where continuing to point out even your most basic misunderstanding will only reinforce your idea that you alone understand Pirsig and everyone else is "SOM" (psychological mirroring). So there is little point in talking, like Dan said.
> >
> >Good luck.
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html