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

[Horse]

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

On 31/10/2016 05:14, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net wrote:
> 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
> 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