[MD] John Carl: Ignoramous or fraud?

Sat Nov 5 23:45:06 PDT 2016

Adrie, all,

I always had the impression that Robert Pirsig is a beachcomber
extraordinaire. I think Phaedrus was portrayed as a poor student. He
read voraciously but also skimmed a great deal searching for relevant
information and discarding that which didn't fit. I would also posit
that what makes Pirsig's work accessible for many is the same thing
that turns academia away from his writings: encasing his philosophy in
the form of novels. I've read other philosophers and what a slog. John
was good enough to send me a copy of Randy Auxier's book Time, Will,
and Purpose: Living Ideas from the Philosophy of Josiah Royce and yes
it was a bit of a snore. I am sure that sort of academic writing
appeals to a certain reader but for me it is exceedingly difficult to
stay interested. That isn't to say I don't appreciate the work that
went into Randy's work. I do. I just don't see how it is accessible to
a lot of readers in the way Pirsig is. I guess you could liken Randy's
work to deep sea diving. Whitehead too. To me, it is much more
enlightening to simply walk down a beach picking up pretty shells.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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

--