Squonk
You may disagree with John and what he writes but there is no need to resort to the kind of insults you have
been indulging in recently.
Please do not continue with this.
If you wish to argue or discuss then do so but kindly leave the insults elsewhere
Horse
On 21 Nov 2001 at 20:01, SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Angus,
> I feel Pirsig is guardedly forecasting the future for a MOQ?
> He cannot spell it right out because that would open himself up to all kinds
> of attack.
> But the parallel between the section where your quote comes from and his own
> history is of some poignancy?
>
> As for John Beasley; the man is a confused windbag and sometimes a confused
> wind bag is just that: a confused windbag.
> There really is no need to begin suggesting that he may actually be a world
> changing force for the better.
>
> As for me, i am neither either.
> I support the insight of a remarkable individual, i.e. Robert Pirsig.
> His MOQ is simple and elegant.
>
> Wilbur and men of his ilk are, on the other hand, opportunists building
> clouds of air upon the solid base of other's works.
> (In his case James, Maslow. et al. those early 'pioneers' of transpersonal
> psychology no less.)
> Once upon a time the paranormalists highjacked the language of Newtonian
> physics; Forces, energies and the like wafted through darkened parlours with
> a cold chill.
> Now, new physics terminology is being highjacked in a similar way; fields,
> emergences, -ons of all descriptions, levels, etc. are all put to good use as
> though they are real.
>
> Structures feel the wrath of the wind Anus.
>
> All the best,
> Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:38 BST