[MD] 420

[david]

John said to Dan:
...I'm well acquainted with Pirsig's works and have been active in discussing them for a long time. I realize I differ in my opinions than some on this list and I realize that's a painful thing to some people, but I'm of the opinion that I'm here to do more than merely learn Pirsig's MoQ. (which I learned when I read it, btw)  ..I'm here to fill it out and develop it further. 


Dan replied:
...I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here other than your contention that SOM is incharge of the social level, which in turn is composed of individuals. In order to counter that argument it seemed necessary to go back to the beginning. It is great that you have nothing left to learn. ... when I see someone going off on a wrong tangent, I do my best to guide them in the right direction.   ...The first clue that you might be wrong is Ham's proclamation that you've hit pay dirt. ..The second clue is David Buchanan and his attempts at setting right your misconceptions. ..I don't mean to be critical, but from what I've seen and despite your protestations, you do not understand the MOQ.


John replied:
Well, you might be right.  But it seems to me that if you are it's a terrible condemnation.  Not of me, but of the MOQ.  If something is so mysterious, so impenetrable that a smart guy can spend over 25 years enthusiastically studying and adopting it as a basis for his life - and still not understand it, then that's a very confusing and confused metaphysical system. But I find Pirsig to be very clear and understandable and I don't have any trouble understanding him.   ...Even tho I am confident of my grasp of the MOQ, I'm always glad to hone and refine. But even apart from the MOQ, I know what a social pattern is.


dmb says:
If a smart guy like you doesn't understand it, then the MOQ is impenetrable and confused? I think that attitude is pretty outrageous. It's also odd that you confidently declare your grasp of the MOQ rather than address the specific corrections and criticisms I've leveled against your claims. Don't you have any response to the article on subject-object dualism or the Pirsig quotes about what drives the social level? I don't see anything to support your claims but there are plenty of unaddressed refutations of them.

As I understand it, you're still making the claim that the giant operates according SOM and your question is weather or not this is necessary or inevitable. But Dan and I have repeatedly tried to explain that the giant does not operate according to SOM - and I showed you what Pirsig says about fame and fortune being the twin engines of the social level. You're simply ignoring lots of really helpful help from helpers. It's frustrating. It's not honest. You can't have a real discussion about anything if you act like that. C'mon, John. Listen to yourself. It's outrageous.

"..I'm well acquainted with Pirsig's works   ...I'm here to do more than merely learn Pirsig's MoQ. (which I learned when I read it, btw)  ..I'm here to fill it out and develop it further.  ...I find Pirsig to be very clear and understandable and I don't have any trouble understanding him.   ...I am confident of my grasp of the MOQ, ...I know what a social pattern is."