[MD] John Carl: Ignoramous or fraud?

Sat Nov 5 09:27:38 PDT 2016

David , All;

This is also something that keeps bugging me , David.
Adrie ,quoting Dmb
 " As if Pirsig had kept his Whitehead reading a big secret and then passed
off Whitehead's thinking as his own thinking. But if Pirsig was trying to
hide a secret connection to Whitehead, why would he quote the man in both
of his books"?..
------------------------------------------------
He (Pirsig) indeed was quoting Whitehead on a regular base.Obvious.
Lila was targeting an academic level of understanding.The level that
understands that there were previous philosphers.
The level were the use of Plato, Socrates,Kant, Russel is understood
to be inherently present as a priori-basic building brick of reality.
It was mandatory for Pirsig to beachcomb all the previous written material,
as there is no reason what so ever to re-invent the universe on a daily
base.
Did he use Whitehead to put some cherry's on the metaphisical pie?..
If he did, they are more than cherry's....and they are laden with new
insights.
Did Metaphisical time keep evolving since Whitehead grew old?I really
do believe so,as did Pirsig and the rest of the establishment.

Sometimes its obvious why the way Whitehead is quoted is seen as offensive
towards theistic people,in the quote you offered yesterday from Lila
were Pirsig (chapter 9)?i believe,quotes Whitehead and ditches the sjamanism
that coasted along in the same alinea, or should i write "was always
inherently present" in the presentations of Whitehead.

It would be interesting i suppose to investgate why there was a 'god' and a
Whitehead 'god'(found on stanford ), and not all theists were very happy
with
this fact.

It would be interesting to reexamine Dr Mc Watts considerations about
Whitehead.

It should be not so difficult to find this asserted stolen concruence as
quite
normal in Philosophical enviroments and is regardes as normal.
John cannot be the first to mine the ore.Others came before him.

But to conclude for now, i was reading some conversation and dialogue
between Russel and Frederik Copleston. Copleston quotes a proffesor on a
 certain moment in time.He does that
to give an example about a water kettlle.
"One can boil the water and conclude that a lot of molecules will escape
from the kettle,but we cannot predict wich ones that will be."

Nice
it made me think about metaphisical pigs,If pigs could fly, how high would
they go.?

Probably i will have the Dutch version of religion in the making within
2,weeks.
with comments and analisys from a local perfessor here.His own material.

Adrie

2016-11-05 15:58 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:

>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of
> Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 12:48 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Wait, who's the fraudulent Ignoramous?
>
>
>
> John said to Adrie:
>
> "So you agree with Auxier that Pirsig derived his MoQ entirely from
> Whitehead?  To tell you the truth, I don't mind at all, it's just a shock
> to find out after all these years."
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> John's approach is outrageously dishonest. It's slanderous bullshit from
> beginning to end. Not only is it a wild distortion to claim that you "agree
> with Auxier that Pirsig derived his MOQ entirely from Whitehead," it's
> simply not true that Auxier said anything like that. His claim was far more
> modest; there is zero chance that Pirsig didn't encounter Whitehead while
> he was in Chicago.
>
>
> But what makes these slanderous, fake debate even worse, is that it's
> really, really stupid. John would have us believe that Pirsig "is
> perpetrating one of the most elaborate frauds ever known" if he ever had
> actually read Whitehead. As if Pirsig had kept his Whitehead reading a big
> secret and then passed off Whitehead's thinking as his own thinking. But if
> Pirsig was trying to hide a secret connection to Whitehead, why would he
> quote the man in both of his books?
>
>
> If John were an honest person, he'd admit defeat when this simple evidence
> is presented and if were a moral person he'd apologize for making such ugly
> and baseless accusations. Let's ask Randy Auxier if there is a zero percent
> chance of that.
>
>
> Who wants to talk with a person who admits no such thing and apologizes
> for nothing - but instead doubles down in this bullshit? Not me.
>
>
> Disgusting.
>
>
>
> Randall Auxier wrote to John:
>
> Zero. Chicago wasn't analytical at that time, and McKeon despised
> analytical philosophy. That day and age at U Chicago was 100% process
> philosophy, both in the Phil. dept and in every committee, including the
> Divinity School. The list of process-professors is endless. Zero.
>
>
>
> John wrote to Auxier:
>
> There are some pertinent biographical facts you're ignoring, Randy. You're
> thinking "he'd have to be crazy to be in Chicago and not have heard of
> Whitehead"  What you're forgetting is that he was crazy, and got so crazy
> he had to be locked up and given electroshock therapy where he had to
> reconstruct his earlier work by looking at notes he'd kept.    I offer a
> few pertinent comments from Pirsig, to illustrate my point that he wasn't
> much of a philosophy student. So Professor, are you still sure there is a
> ZERO chance that Pirsig didn't understand or read Whitehead?  If he did,
> then he's perpetrating one of the most elaborate frauds I've ever known.
>
>
>
> Auxier's reply:
>
> Zero. You don't understand what actually happens in graduate seminars in
> philosophy, such as McKeon's. I have spent a lifetime both doing this and
> listening to it. You don't understand how students talk on their way into
> and out of class, or what they discuss on the days between. The entire
> heady scene of graduate school, which Pirsig describes quite nicely in Zen,
> includes all kinds of things that won't show up in books and letters. I
> assure you, he knew and heard about and probably read Whitehead while at
> Chicago. If his memory was wiped out, that is hardly evidence against what
> I'm saying. It helps my case. He relieved these ideas from the recesses of
> a damaged cerebral cortex. Nothing unusual about that.
>
> <http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> 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
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> 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
>

-- 
parser