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

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

dmb,


> dmb says:
>
> You're confused because instead of presenting my criticism, I've    
> asked you if you're interested in my criticism?


Tuukka:
Yes. Why should you care about me? Shouldn't you care about yourself  
now that your stance turned out to be the losing one?


> As I see it, I've offered some criticism but you haven't really    
> responded to it.


Tuukka:
I skipped the parts that had nothing to do with what I wrote.


> Last time you defended your logic, even though I  said nothing about logic,


Tuukka:
That's the problem. Unlike Pirsig and I, you refuse to pay attention to logic.


> and this time your response pivots around  the distinction between   
> rhetoric and dialectic. Neither of those  things are relevant to the  
>  critical points raised.


Tuukka:
You didn't raise critical points. You gave me a pep talk. Now you call  
your pep talk criticism and insist that this has nothing to do with  
rhetoric. Are you kidding me? What you're doing is nothing but rhetoric.


> So I'm just  saying that I don't want to repeat the criticism that   
> has already  been offered, especially if you don't care. But since   
> I'm offering  an answer to the question you've posed (about the   
> status of mind and  matter in the MOQ), you seem to be deliberately   
> avoiding the content  of my comments. If you aren't really   
> interested, then I won't  bother.


Tuukka:

Why would a person, whose position in a debate is so bad as yours, ask  
me if I'm interested of their reply? Well, I'm not a mind reader but  
I've noticed how you've dealt with this topic so far. You've pretended  
you're my mentor and then posted me a pep talk that doesn't pertain to  
the issue I raised. I can see why you have to do that.

Your goal is to make your losing stance seem good to an audience that  
doesn't understand logic. X Acto there mightn't understand logic since  
he doesn't even write grammatically correct English. Maybe there are  
more such people around?

And how do you pursue your goal? If you even tried the dialectical  
approach I could catch you making a mistake. Dan tried to do this and  
now he doesn't say a thing. So you're not going that way.

Maybe there are no mistakes in rhetoric? Your only remaining option is  
to post something that has nothing to do with the Heinous Quadrilemma  
and to write that post as if you're my mentor giving me a pep talk.  
Because, if someone reads that really carelessly, he or she might  
actually believe you're my mentor. That I'm a novice, struggling to  
understand the MOQ, but you already do and you're so generous you give  
me a pep talk.

This is what you've done.

And now you ask me if I want more of that. Oh man... that's not an  
easy question to answer! I really don't know. I still need more time  
to think about that.


> It's a lot of work, you know?


Tuukka:

I used to complain about the work, too. Didn't make it any easier to do.

You know what. Yeah, I'm interested about your critique. Please do  
send it. I'll reply when I have nothing better to do.


Regards,
Tuk