From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 31 2004 - 01:54:51 GMT
Sam and all MOQers:
dmb said:
Why should a person have to become familiar with an entire branch of human
knowledge just to understand the meaning of a word?
Sam replied:
Of course you need to become familiar with an area before you can understand
it.
dmb says:
ARRRG! As I understand, the claim is that Pirsig's idea of faith as a
willness to believe falsehoods, which is also the common meaning of the
word, is not the correct or christian meaning of the word. This naturally
raises the question, "well then, what does it mean"? And so far most of the
answers to this question have been a blur of nonsense and insults. And I
resent the suggenstion that the lack of any coherent response has been
construed so that its my fault. What do you mean by faith? Those are six
short words and they compose a simple question. I don't want to read a stack
of books to find support for a claim I did not make and am in fact in the
process of disputing.
Nobody denied the "need to become familiar with an area before you can
understand it". Those are the rules of participation here and it only makes
sense. I'm just not concerned with what's on your bookshelf so much as on
your mind. Again, this tactic strikes me as both condescending and evasive.
It removes the responsiblity from the one making the claim, where it
properly belongs.
> dmb to scott:
> I honestly don't know what motivates you, but whenever we see lots of
> crazyness and tortured logic, you can bet your ass something personal is
at
> stake.
Sam replied with the rubber-n-glue theory of debate again:
You're the one exhibiting crazyness and tortured logic. What's at stake here
for you? (Please don't just say 'truth', because that begs the question. And
it's a genuine question by the way, I'm not trying to be snide)
dmb answers:
What's in it for me? The battle is its own reward. We actually have a lot in
common, father. We both care about these issues. We both think religion is
important. We've both read, thought, studied. In a way, its my life too. We
both think the other guy is wrong. And that's why I do it. I care and I
think you're wrong. Its not about me and you, of course. Its about the clash
between philosophical mysticism and the church. Its about Pirsig's MOQ and
your offensive attempts to alter it to fit with your churchianity. Since you
very well know of Pirsig's explicit comments on faith and theism, such
alterations show a dishonesty of intellect, a willingness to distort ideas
for your own purposes. Going away to do your own thinking is one thing, but
importing Anglicanism into the MOQ is another. I wonder how you'd feel if I
did the reverse? How about if we change the church to accomodate the MOQ
instead?
Adding insult to injury, these objections are usually met with a distorted
response like one above. There my objection to being given a homework
assignment instead of a direct answer was construed as a manifesto against
knowledge. Since this is not even remotely close to what I was saying, and
since Sam is not a blithering idiot, I can only conclude that this too is
dishonest. I mean, you really can't believe I was making a case against
knowledge. Oddly perhaps, its the dishonesty and illogic that offends me and
not the insult. Sam, can you HONESTLY tell me that you HONESTly thought I
was claiming to be saint, for example? Dude, I mean father, that's just some
kind of lie. That's morally wrong, see? Its not honest or fair. To say that
its not rational or that its incorrect really doesn't cover it. I don't even
care about nice or polite, but philosophy, or any good conversation, is
impossible without this kind of honest and fair, see? No? Maybe you really
don't see that. Apparently not because whenever I raise such complaints they
are taken for dogmatism or a unneccesary desire for MOQ purity or some other
thing that has nothing to do with the actual objection.
Yea, I'm rambling. I'm trying to explain why I think the battle is its own
reward, why I defend the MOQ against theist hijackers, why I defend
philosophical mysticism against the faithfull. I'm telling you why I find
Sam's position and approach deeply offensive and morally lacking as well as
incorrect.
Oh, and there's cash. That's ALSO what's in it for me. I'm playing a role in
a reality show. I have until new year's day to hospitalize a priest with
nothing more than words. If Sam has a stroke or goes insane because of my
posts, I win a million dollars. How am I doing so far?
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 : Sun Oct 31 2004 - 02:00:08 GMT