ELEPHANT:
Yes, you are all more than welcome to visit
http://website.lineone.net/~david.robjant/index.html
Struan, I was perhaps to quick to assume that it was my private approaches
from which you mined those insults, but then again perhaps not: as you now
deny they took place. Why would you tell a lie like that?
I approached you over the frightening vehemence of the quarrel with Horse.
Do you have the gall to deny writing to me in response:
> I'm just having a laugh winding
> Horse up, don't take it so seriously. I know its a bit sad and probably very
> childish, but it is fascinating and great fun.
Should I publish the whole correspondance - or will you?
Perhaps you'd like to get in a head of me and embarrass me by quoting all my
diplomatic attempts to play the holy fool. Go right ahead. Then explain
your denial that the exchange took place:
>I can't recall a single word you have sent me in private
This denial is a particulary foolish move as the correspondance was also
addressed to a third party.
Your contributions are useful insofar as they make us think about Pirsig.
Insofar as they are self confessedly childish taunting, they are worse than
a waste of time. If we could have the one Struan without the other we would
all be very grateful. You play the teacher, but if anyone behaved towards
university students with the deceit and bile that you do in this forum they
would be out the door before anyone could say 'conduct unbecoming'.
In the light of this present deceit I withdraw my earlier outspoken support
for Struan's contribution to this forum.
I would encourage any amount of loose language and pomposity so long as
useful exchanges result, but speaking personally a character assaination
embroidered by lies is the limit.
ELEPHANT
(David Robjant)
> From: "Struan" <struan@clara.co.uk>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:32:52 -0000
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: RE: MD Morality
>
> Greetings,
>
> Platt and Jonathan. This is what I meant to say. At the end of chapter 12,
> Pirsig tells us that the moq combines 'science and ethics . . . . into a
> single system'. Presumably that system is no less scientific than science
> and no less ethical than ethics. If this is so, it is entirely reasonable of
> me to conclude that Pirsig sees the resolution of all ethical dilemmas to be
> absolutely scientific and all scientific study as ethical. So, although I
> was lazy in misrepresenting Pirsig by saying he wrote what he did not, and
> so a full apology was entirely appropriate, the thrust of my argument
> remains.
>
> Elephant. You clearly failed to notice that my question was directed at
> Jonathan. That will be why I wrote: "I wonder if you, Jonathan, are in
> agreement with me. . . . etc". So, with that in mind, you will perhaps
> appreciate that when you answer that question by saying that YOU have been
> clear on this issue 'again and again' and, additionally that YOU are,
> 'becoming quite livid at (my) inability, I should say refusal, to pay any
> attention', to YOU, I worry that you have lost - how shall I put it? - a
> certain sense of humility.
>
> Also, I can't recall a single word you have sent me in private and have
> certainly never used any of it against you. Your website
> http://website.lineone.net/~david.robjant/index.html is in the public domain
> and you have posted links to it here on at least two occasions. If you don't
> want the public to see some of the information contained therein, I advise
> you to remove it.
>
> David. Thanks for your kind words. Like Elephant I agree with what you say,
> excluding his exceptions. Pirsig's 'moral taxonomy' is what I criticise. If
> he had left his musings at a restatement of Plato's 'good', I would have no
> urge to refute him. He did not leave it at that. He thinks he has a new
> metaphysics which is consistent with science, empiricism, logical
> positivism, Darwinism and mysticism and which integrates science and ethics
> into one system. If it ain't consistent, it ain't scientific I'm afraid, so
> by admitting inconsistencies one is admitting that Pirsig got this aspect
> wrong. And yet Pirsig goes to great lengths to show how the moq is
> scientific. As I have said before on a few occasions, I am not interesting
> in refuting Elephant; my target is Pirsig. Perhaps Elephant will, at last,
> take that on board.
>
> Struan
>
> P.S Elephants have tusks, not horns and the trouble with generous bulls is
> that they tend to produce generous quantities of bullshit. :-)
>
> Struan Hellier
> <mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:58 BST