From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Sun Oct 31 2004 - 02:45:52 GMT
Chuck to DMB:
Can I be your agent?
Best regards,
C.
On Oct 30, 2004, at 6:54 PM, David Buchanan wrote:
> 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 -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
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 -
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 - 02:54:15 GMT