From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 22:18:16 GMT
DMB played the blame game (which is also not about mysticism or rhetoric):
If you were following the "Rhetoric" thread, which begain as a discussion
about the mysticism of the Sophists and the rhetoric they used, you may have
noticed some frustration over my futile attempts to get Matt to hear me and
to keep him on the topic.
Matt, being a sport, plays along:
The only way this could be true is if by "keep him on topic" you mean "agree
in details and not just generals". Christ, if you're so pissed off that I
don't stay on _your_ topic, why don't you exert some self-control and ignore
me. Unlike you, I promise to leave you alone.
I do have my preoccupations, but I don't "hijack" every thread around here.
_You're_ the one that talks to _me_. _You're_ the one that harrasses me
wherever I go (always seemingly about mysticism, too). The only reason I
wrote anything to your "Rhetoric" thread was because you tagged me for
comment. So I did. As I said a couple weeks ago, that post was exactly
where we ended up after four months of goin' around in circles. If _you_
didn't like where _I_ was taking your thread, which was explicitly designed
as a meta-comment (i.e. "I don't read the Sophists that way"), then you
shouldn't have said anything. Just ignored me and talked to the people who
did want to talk about what you wanted to talk about. I mean, why do you
need to get me, of all people, to hear you? You try and try and try, but I
apparently just won't listen (which, oddly, is an equally misleading way of
putting my problem with you). But you do realize that we don't _have_ to
have this, or any other, conversation, don't you DMB? It's not like we've
been forced into a room and we _have_ to talk.
I doubt I scared anybody away with my first post. I also didn't object to
your thread starter. You say, "Sadly, instead of talking about what was
lost and how to get it back, instead of talking about the problem that I
presented, the problem that Pirsig's ZAMM is meant to address, I had to
spend time defending vague objections and answering irrelevat objections
even while my own points were being ignored." But that's patently false.
Go ahead and reread my first post. No objections whatsoever. Just some
vague concerns about where our two projects line up. And I even said that I
didn't think our two different readings of the Sophists neccessarily had any
tensions between them. No objections, but also not really an _addition_ to
the conversation _you_ wanted to have. But it wasn't meant to be. My first
post reads like a "Here are some rough comments about where it looks like
you're going to go in the conversation. Go have it, I'll sit here and
listen." But I myself can't have that conversation. I wouldn't have
anything to say. All I can do is listen and learn from it. And I did learn
some things about the conversation you wanted to have. But we were talking
_about_ the conversation you wanted to have, not actually having it. That
pisses you off. You think I hijacked the thread. But I don't know what you
expect. I don't want to hold your hand and talk about everything you want
to talk about. Sometimes I just want to listen. But you kept goin' at my
throat about stuff that, well, wasn't actually the conversation you wanted
to have either. Again, you stepped onto my turf. By taking up my response,
you shifted conversations whether you were self-conscious of it or not. To
me, its almost as if you were talking to me about boats while complaining
that I kept talking about boats. It's annoying for me because I _do_ want
to talk about boats, but not only do you make me suffer by ripping on people
who want to talk about boats, you keep following me around talking about
boats. So how can I help but be polite and talk back, despite always paying
for it? And, of course, its annoying for you because you'd really rather
not talk about boats. You in fact hate boats. _Well quit talking to me
about boats_.
So please, go ahead and talk about what you want to talk about. Just leave
me out of it. If you bring me in, then you force my hand to defend myself.
And that defense won't be about what you're talking about. So, in a way,
its your own damn fault. Though it is a good, though dirty, strategy on
your part. Attack me, but if I try and defend myself you can attack me
again for going off topic. Its win-win for you. And you've been callin'
that play for a long time.
I will say this in reponse to your suggestion that the MoQ has
world-historical import. In my recent "Open Letter to MD Newbies" I offered
a couple of explanations to "explain the unmistakable odor of gunpowder and
blood one will smell after listening in on the discussions for a week." One
of them was this:
----------------------
Pirsig’s writings try and place their finger on a “spiritual crisis” in our
society. Pirsig’s proposed solution is almost entirely individualistic
(meaning centered on each person taking care of themselves) and almost
entirely philosophical (meaning we have to change, in a large, general,
broad-scale way, many prevailing attitudes). People who find themselves
here, then, are by and large taken by Pirsig’s diagnosis and wish to search
for the solution and for ways of disseminating it. This is a large task and
clearly of the utmost, dire importance (at least for those who think this
way). Because of the importance and because of the fact that we, apparently,
are the only ones who take Pirsig seriously, reaching consensus on Pirsig’s
philosophy and then moving on to dissemination is intensely important, and
time is being wasted. In other words, the antagonism is marked by
impatience.
As I said before, that explanation holds for only some. But because everyone
was attracted to Pirsig (and, what’s more, then this site) for some reason,
everyone probably falls on a continuum between “What spiritual crisis?” and
“The world is about to end!!!” with most people somewhere in the middle.
--------------------
I'm somewhere in the middle, though compared to you DMB, I lean heavily
towards "What spiritual crisis?" But it only seems that way when I'm
compared to you, and because I think taking care of poverty is more
important then everyone discovering mysticism.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/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 : Sun Nov 27 2005 - 23:57:55 GMT