[MD] Why does Pirsig write everybody's right about mind and matter although his theses imply the opposite?

[Dan Glover]

Hi Horse, all,

I agree with everything you are saying. I'd love to see moq_discuss
revitalized which is one reason why I take my time to answer Tuk's
questions and concerns though I do tend to become frustrated when he
and John talk down the MOQ and disrespect Robert Pirsig. Especially
since neither of them seem to have a good grasp on the subject matter
and as you say adopt confrontational attitudes when challenged which
only furthers the frustration I feel.

Now, before someone gets the idea that I take myself as some sort of
MOQ expert, I don't. In fact, I learn a whole lot more when I am wrong
than when I am right. And yes, Tuk is a smart guy. So is John. And by
partaking in these discussions with them and others, I have learned a
great deal. This isn't a debate. This isn't an I'm right and you're
wrong format. It is a place where I like to think we can all offer up
our interpretation of the MOQ despite our different backgrounds.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean everyone's interpretation is
correct. We need to back up our assertions with solid evidence like
quotes from Robert Pirsig as well as grounding those quotes in
specific contexts. And yes, that is a lot of work. And I don't know
about you but I can tell when someone is winging it rather than
putting in the work to develop a solid argument. Like I've told people
before: don't tell me how smart you are. Show me.

Anyway...

Dan

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> Hi Dan and all
> I thought that may have been why you went quiet Dan - also why Dave seems to
> have dropped out. It would appear that Tuuk is less interested in having a
> conversation and prefers a confrontation, foisting a particular point of
> view on everyone around him. Tuuk and John also have an agenda which
> includes 'revitalising' MD in order that the other list they occupy has
> something to react against - which might explain the confrontational
> approach they're currently adopting.
> The problem with Tuuk 's confrontational approach is that after a while
> others (yourself, David, Ron etc.) get frustrated and then bored with
> continually going over the same arguments because his heels are dug in and
> he is incapable of understanding that he may have erred in his initial
> premise or premises and is incapable of backtracking. We've seen this a
> number of times in the past and, as said, why would we wish to waste
> precious time on someone who has no interest in listening. A shame really as
> Tuuk is an intelligent guy who may have had something of interest to say but
> his 'people skills' aren't up to much.
> Still, I'm not going to waste any of my own time on it - especially when
> nothing new or useful, with regard to Pirsig's MoQ, is likely to come of it.
> I also don't like being manipulated by others to further their childish
> agendas!
>
> Cheers
>
> Horse
>
>
>
> On 31/10/2016 17:21, Dan Glover wrote:
>>
>> Horse, all,
>>
>> Thank you. Yes, I have gone quiet for just that reason. As Dave says,
>> this is a lot of work, at least for me, and when someone digs into a
>> position like Tuk has done here, not only does frustration result but
>> also the sense that I am beating my head against a wall. Meaningful
>> intelligent discussions are a joy but they do take away time that can
>> be better spent elsewhere, which I don't begrudge, mind you, if the
>> discussion is indeed meaningful and intelligent.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Dan
>>
>> http://www.danglover.com
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tuuk (and John)
>>>
>>> I think what Dave is asking, and is being far too polite about it,unlike
>>> me,
>>> is - are you interested in a meaningful discussion relating to RMP's MoQ
>>> or
>>> is this just another boring wind-up or point scoring exercise.?
>>> We've all wasted far too much time in the past on list members who
>>> misinterpret or fail to understand the MoQ and, given your past record,
>>> this
>>> looks like another of those time-wasting exercises. Dan has gone quiet, I
>>> imagine, for the same reason. Why bother trying to have a meaningful
>>> discussion with someone who is only interested in confusing and/or
>>> misinterpreting and twisting the MoQ for their own purpose and has bugger
>>> all interest in what Pirsig has to say and, additionally, what those who
>>> have a thorough understanding (i.e. a lot better than yours it would
>>> appear)
>>> of Pirsigs work have to say as well?
>>> It's exasperating, time-consuming and more than a little sad when this
>>> happens.
>>>
>>> And, as for the 'Ignoramus or Fraud' bullshit, if you or John want to
>>> come
>>> on here and be deliberately disrespectful and inflammatory then you can
>>> fuck
>>> off back to your own inconsequential little list and talk amongst
>>> yourselves
>>> over there - along with the other nut jobs!
>>>
>>> Are we clear now?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your interest!
>>>
>>> Horse
>>>
>> 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
>>
>
> --
>
>
> "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
> that take our breath away."
> — Bob Moorehead
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> 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