From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 27 2002 - 01:20:48 GMT
Sam and all:
Sam said:
Which to my mind means that your are unfairly characterising my approach
when you accuse me of 'distortion'
Sam said:
I think that would imply an excessively narrow understanding of the MoQ
Sam said:
Or would you rather we had a little fundamentalist grouping that wasn't
interested in establishing whether Pirsig's proposals were actually true or
not?
Sam said:
Feel free to brand me a heretic and round up a posse to run me out of
town... :o)
DMB says:
Whew! It seems your love of theater has paid off. My criticism reveals an
unfair, excessively narrow, fundamentalist. This is pretty damn dramatic!
Just kidding. Sorry if you feel if I've been unfair, but honestly think
changing the name and/or definition of Pirsig's levels does constitute a
distortion of the MOQ. And to return the charge, I think its unfair to
characterize my objections as narrow or fundamentalists. To insist on
preserving the basic terms and definitions hardly seems radical or dogmatic
to me. Its about clarity. Its a pre-requisite for all intelligent and
fruitful discussion, don't you think? How can we discuss the MOQ when we
can't even agree on its most broad and basic features? And so changing ther
names or definintions of those basic terms only strikes me as some kind of
intellectual sabotage, a wrench in the works. Sorry. Just calling it like I
see it.
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:04 GMT