RE: MD "linear causality"

From: John Maher (jozabad2001@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 15:46:33 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD all of society's ills"

    Hi Horse,

    Of course I will unsubscribe as you request, but, for
    your own good, I ask you to consider these points as I
    go.

    1) Your belligerent, bullying manner is not only
    offensive, but it also stops you from being an
    effective moderator of this forum in that it places
    ALL of the burden of proof on those who dissent, while
    letting those who agree with your version of Pirsig
    get away with anything they like.

    2) It is ironic that you require of your contributors
    (ONLY when they disagree with you) a much higher level
    of scholarship than Pirsig was prepared to forward.
    Read Lila and see how often Pirsig fails to provide
    quotes to back up his reading of others. (I DO NOT
    CRITICISE PIRSIG FOR THIS).

    3) As someone who (I would hope) has some expertise in
    philosophy, you will be aware that pithy quotes, while
    they do have their place, are not the be all and end
    all of evidence. Glenn, and now Matt, have taken (in
    some ways) a more sophisticated approach, which seems
    to have passed you by. The simplistic notion that if
    you throw in a Pirsig quote you are 'de dicto' correct
    and honest, but if you don't you are wrong and evil,
    does not help very much.

    4) You write that, 'It is not normal practice to
    attempt to disprove spurious and/or malicious claims.
    They are treated with the contempt they deserve.' I
    would suggest that this is the heart of your problem.
    You have your fundamentalist view of the MOQ and
    anything that falls outside of it is, in your eyes,
    spurious and therefore deserves contempt. I understand
    Pirsig's claim that 'Phaedrus' means 'wolf' was
    spurious. Does this mean that he deserves the same
    sort of contempt you value and which you show to
    dissenters?

    5) My contribution to the debate about Pirsig
    belittling science is that bad scientists (or poorly
    informed non-scientists), simply by indulging bad
    science, belittle science. Pirsig claims that the MOQ
    is scientific and, in doing so, belittles science,
    because that claim is false (spurious, therefore
    deserving of contempt by your values and unworthy of
    being disproved!).

    Finally, it was Pirsig himself who promoted this site
    in the foreword to ZAMM. It is, therefore, a huge
    disappointment that it is run as it is. Why did you
    set up a forum dedicated to a philosophy from which
    you are so obviously disconnected?

    I take my leave and apologise to others for my
    contribution to the low value Horse creates.

    John

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Everything you'll ever need on one web page
    from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
    http://uk.my.yahoo.com

    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 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 15:47:07 GMT