From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 23:34:50 GMT
Matt and all MOQers:
DMB said:
... I think Matt has been stretching the definitions of key terms to the
point where they no longer recognizable. The result is that we have just one
term to refer to two completely different concepts. I mean, one might try to
explain how and why it is NOT a gross distortion to describe Dynamic Quality
as "a compliment". And there was also the far less complicated case, where
Matt wanted us to pretend that he really meant "follow a line of thought"
when he used the phrase "align our thoughts". This kind of thing is not only
confusing, its dishonest.
Matt replied:
Its clear that DMB no longer trusts me. He thinks I'm out to deceive
people. I don't know why he thinks so, I'm not sure why anybody would even
want to deceive others. What's the point? Its just a philosophy discussion
group.
dmb says:
You don't know why? Really? Switching "follow a line" for "aligning your
thoughts" doesn't strike you as dishonest? (Not to mention the fact that
this sophistry was an evasive ploy in the first place.) I wonder how you'd
feel if the situation were reversed. Would you take me as sincere and honest
if I now tried to explain that "dishonest" is a word I use ironically and it
really refers to "a brilliant insight into the vaccuous nature of
intellectual morality" or whatever? Obviously, only a fool could take such
backtracking seriously. Why would anybody be pointlessly deceptive in a
discussion group? I don't know, dude. To cover one's butt, I suppose. You
tell me.
Matt adds insult to injury:
But never fear. I still trust DMB. I'm pretty sure that he means and
believes every arrogant and ignorant thing he says. If he didn't, wouldn't
that simply be Limbaugh-like defamation? To put the trust back in our
relationship, I think its suffice to say that from either of our
perspectives, the other is ignorant.
dmb says:
OK. Let's say we are both ignorant. I haven't read much Rorty for lots of
reasons. Mostly, I'm responding to what is written here, which I have read.
But you know what? This site does not require us to read Rorty. We are here
to discuss Pirsig and are required to have read his books. So it seems to me
that my ignorance of Rorty is irrelevant, but your distortions of Pirsig
(using Rorty) is extremely relevant. I mean, for the purposes of discussing
the MOQ, Richard Rorty is completely un-necessary. But as a discussion
group, it is very necessary that we use Pirsig's terms as accurately as
possible. That's why is bugs me so much when DQ is construed as "a
compliment". This is the work of a hack, of someone who has no business
comparing ideas. It simply defies the descriptions of the author. Imagine
Pirsig writing, "Once DQ is associated with compliments it produces an
avalanche of information as to what DQ is". Its ridiculous! Religious
mysticism and compliments aren't even close to being interchangable,
synonmous or even vaguely similar. In a discussion group this sort of thing
is nothing but a monkey wrench in the works. Its the opposite of helpful, a
distracting waste of time.
But I don't think you're ignorant so much as you're a tragic victim of the
Cleveland Harbor effect and this (DQ=a compliment) is just one example of
this kind of misreading. You're reading Pirsig as if he were a neo-prag and
thereby misunderstanding his actual point. You're lost. You are convinced
that you know exactly where you are, but you're not even on the same body of
water. The very first and most important split in the MOQ is between Dynamic
and static and you have equated one with the other! Its ridiculous. And when
I complain about it, you can only call me names, shrugg, give up or
otherwise evade the issue.
Thanks,
Rush Limbaugh (with talent on loan from God)
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 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 23:37:32 GMT