From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 18:28:00 GMT
Hi Glenn and All
On 4 Jan 2003 at 1:49, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> Horse,
> I will not honour your request to provide specific evidence here
> because I've been doing this all along,
So, basically, you have constructed your opinion and you don't need annoying facts or
evidence to get in the way. It's interesting that you support the fundamentalist ethic!
But be honest Glenn, you are declining my very reasonable request to provide specific
evidence that Pirsig belittles science because no such evidence exists. It is merely a
figment of your imagination, isn't it?
Another reason that you are unable to provide any evidence that Pirsig belittles science
is because the only 'evidence' you know of is of your own invention. And if you have
been providing evidence of such all along, as you say, then please point us to it.
> and I don't think that a dashed-out list will do my arguments justice.
Actually I was looking for maybe just a few quotes from ZAMM, Lila, SODV or Lila's
Child that would support your accusation that Pirsig belittles science. But because they
don't exist and you are not able to admit this first you give me Jung and naiads and now
you incorrectly assert that you've been doing this all along.
> You've had ample opportunity to complain about any of my past
> science-related posts, but since you generally have not, I thought
> your emergence from lurkerland was prompted by the word "belittle",
> and so I was quick to tell you what I meant by that. You have lumped
> "vilifies", "maligns", and "decry" with "belittle". These are
> directionally correct but they're obviously of a different temper.
You are quite right that my post was prompted by your use of the phrase belittle. Your
use of it in relation to Pirsig and the MoQ is ridiculous and unsupportable as you well
know. You subsequently tried to downgrade your ludicrous accusation by defining
belittle as "lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation of". A shallow ploy at best and also
as unsupportable as your belittlement assertion. Can you provide quotes from ZAMM,
Lila, SODV or Lila's Child to show that Pirsig seeks to lessen the authority, dignity, or
reputation of science?
The terms that I chose - malign, cheapen, denigrate, decry, bad-mouth and vilify - are a
lot closer in meaning to belittle than your choice as they convey a contemptuous attitude
remarkably similar to your own regarding Pirsig.
> Pirsig's attitude toward science is my plank - my angle - my main
> reason for being here. I've spent two years writing posts about it,
> and I think it's essential to look at these attitudes square on
> to have a fuller appreciation of what motivates Pirsig's
> philosophical positions.
And what exactly does motivate Pirsig's philosophical position? Will you share this with
us or will you also decline this on the grounds that you've been doing it all along. Can
you also give us some evidence, in the form of quotes from ZAMM, Lila, SODV or Lila's
Child, for your insight here or is it just more groundless conjecture and speculation.
> If I think that some view of Pirsig's about science is mis-guided or
> calculated or hypocritical or based on ignorance, I will let you know
> and tell you why I think so. You don't have to agree. I also find
> entirely reasonable Pirsig's position that science is not beyond
> criticism. I just don't agree, by and large, with his criticisms.
Disagreeing with his criticisms of science or any other subject is entirrely reasonable
and something I have also been known to do. But this is entirely different from making
unfounded accusations such as that Pirsig belittles science.
Glenn, you have certainly disappointed me by your inability to support your accusation
that Pirsig belittles science and I think you have probably disappointed others as well.
It's a real shame that when your bluff is called and you are asked to support your
position with evidence and quotes you are unable to do so. Not the sort of approach that
would be expected from a supporter of science - a discipline which would demand that
you support your position with evidence when making such accusations.
Horse
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 : Sat Jan 04 2003 - 18:25:40 GMT