From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 08:33:49 BST
Hello everyone
>From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:06:44 -0400
>
>
>Received from Dan Glover on Monday, August 09, 2004 2:48 PM
>Subject: Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value
>
>
> > Dear HP
> >
> > I'm very disappointed in your essay. I revel in new Pirsig-related
>writings
> > so I was looking forward to an intellectual treat. Instead I find a
>mishmash
> > of platitudes I've been reading my whole life. As far as I can see your
> > essay doesn't contain a single original idea. In addition, there is only
>one
> > reference to Robert Pirsig, the outtake from his SODV paper, and your
> > comments on that make it appear as if you've read neither of his books.
>In
> > fact, after reading your essay it appears you don't even know how many
> > "cult" books RMP wrote. Do you? Have you in fact read both ZMM and LILA?
>If
> > so, why haven't you revised your essay to reflect that? If not, what are
>you
> > doing here?
>
>I'm disappointed in you, Dan; and I wouldn't have replied to such a hostile
>reception
>except for my curiosity as to what might have provoked it.
Hi Ham
My post wasn't meant to be hostile; I'm afraid you have misread my post. You
can check the archives for yourself and see that I'm not the foaming at the
mouth attack dog you imagine. I have it on good authority that Mark does
bite though so you better watch out for him; you don't want to get too
close. And remember, you came here asking for opinions. As the old saying
goes, be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
Could you tell me more of how it is that I disappoint you? All I've done is
to be forthcoming though I do realize that can sometimes be upsetting if a
person's unprepared. Would you rather I lie to you? Or not post to you at
all? That's easily enough done too. On my part though perhaps it's true that
I could learn to use expostulation with a little more compassion. My
apologies if I offend you. That's not my intent.
>Perhaps I'm
>wrong, but I
>thought the purpose of a forum was to provide an open discussion of ideas
>related to
>the subject at hand -- in this case, a philosophy focusing on Quality.
From the charter of moq.org: The MOQ_DISCUSS mailing list exists to provide
a general and free-ranging forum for the discussion of Robert M. Pirsig's
Metaphysics of Quality.
That means to me that a person should read the books (2 books, not a great
deal to ask) before joining the discussion. Despite your protests to the
contrary I don't believe you have. At least that's the bad taste your essay
has left in my mouth.
>Inasmuch as my
>thesis has a similar thrust, although developed from a metaphysical rather
>than a
>sociological perspective, it seemed a perfectly appropriate topic for
>discussion.
>That is "what I'm doing here"!
You might want to review as well the rest of the moq_discuss rules.
>
>I'm sorry there were not enough Pirsig quotes in my thesis to whet your
>intellectual
>appetite, but, as someone interested in philosophy, I should think you
>would
>want to
>explore other concepts of esthetic reality, which is what MOQ really is. Or
>are you so
>bound to a single author that you reject anything that's not constructed on
>his statements?
Enough Pirsig quotes isn't the problem with your essay. You could fill it
with Pirsig quotes and it wouldn't help matters. I've read Pirsig-related
papers without any Pirsig quotes at all, only a mention of his name or his
books. But I could tell the authors were familiar with his work. You on the
other hand seem to have no inkling of what RMP is on about. You admit as
much in your essay.
>That is a strange attitude, indeed, for a subsciber to a group whose common
>quest is for
>philosophical truth.
You seem to assume since I find your work let's say unoriginal just to be
polite that I only read Pirsig. Hah! Tell that to my aching back after
lugging over a hundred boxes containing a collection of 6000+ books from one
house to the next. I'd cull the collection but most have annotations in them
and of course one just never knows when a certain book will come in handy.
Let me tell you sir, that's some heavy reading though. And that doesn't
count my uncounted books in storage. I could start a serious used book
store. See, you got me all wrong. You're talking to the kid who read
dictionaries and encyclopedias for fun. I said I revel in Pirsig-related
writings which is how you (mis)represented your work hence my
disappointment. But I read everything I get my hands on. Still, perhaps my
expectations were too high after reading the last Pirsig-related paper I had
the pleasure to receive.
>
>Yes, Dan, I have read "Lila" and most of "ZMM" -- not to qualify for this
>list, but rather
>to see how philosophers have dealt with Quality and Value, both of which
>are
>of concern
>to me. (As you've observed, I found the author's paper on "Subjects,
>Objects, Data and
>Values" metaphysically more relevant, as well as strong support for my
>thesis.)
You didn't answer one of my questions. Why haven't you revised your essay to
reflect what you've read? You badly misinterpret what Robert Pirsig is
saying in his paper. You might come to understand that by reading LILA. And
if you've read it I would suggest reading it again. You haven't got it yet.
Your essay needs work. I might add that the SODV paper is not the best
source to quote from if you want to understand the MOQ, in my opinion, and
also from my discussions with him, I presume that of the author of the paper
himself.
>
>Fortunately, several of the participants in this discussion have found some
>intruiguing ideas
>in my thesis that animosity has apparently prevented your discovering. I
>sincerely hope
>that your opinion of me as an "intruder on sacred soil" will change over
>time.
Please don't think that I see you as an intruder on sacred soil. Everyone is
welcome here. Well, just about everyone. There might be one or two folks who
are not welcome. That's not my doing though. But you know what? Take my
advice and do what I do. Take the criticisms offered by the group and use
them to better your work. Either that or just go away and sulk. That works
for me too at times.
>
>Essentially yours,
>Ham
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 08:35:06 BST