We each have our own styles, and I am sure you would not pretend to be
the expert in English prose.
All this right and wrong that you are speaking of is really nonsense,
and you know it. Do you know what is good? Need anyone tell you what
is? If not, then please do not tell other people what is. Give some
respect to Quality.
Yes, your feelings. Stop all that chatter in your mind and just be.
Thinking is only a small part of what you are. Do not let the ghost
of reason haunt you, or you will completely lose sight of Quality.
I was going to go on for a few more paragraphs but you are a smart
person and so you know what I am talking about. If not, then chew on
it a bit before responding.
Like the book by the way. Good job.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Jan Anders Andersson
> Well Mark
> When you've finished my book you'll understand that much of rhetoric is keeping a balance between mass, form and meaning.
> Some people say too little, other talk too much.
> Some say it simple with a few words but hard to understand, some say it well but in the wrong language.
> Some talk to the wrong people or can't shut up and listen when neccessary.
> Use your feelings! The Foice is with you, Luke!
> Jan Anders
> 16 jul 2012 kl. 08.41 skrev 118:
>> Ant McWatt "commented" on Mark's thoughtful opinion:
>>> That's all sort of Ok in it's usual phoney kind of way especially as it shows (unwittingly) that GOOD rhetoric probably always needs SOME substance to it. You've got to remember that writers such as Hemingway - or Pirsig for that matter - really believed in Artistic truth. Moreover, there's very little, or any, unnecessary ornamentation in their writing. This is analogous to Taoist art where only enough line is given on the page to suggest a tree or a rock (or whatever it may be). Keep in mind if you're writing rhetoric for other reasons (usually egotistical) emulation is unlikely to convince; certainly not to a careful reader anyway!
>>> Practice (as long as you can count to four) makes perfect as they say,
>>> P.s. In other words, short version, what Marks says on this Discussion Board (as regards the MOQ at least) is, of course, usually a load of bull but one day, he might get round to writing a half decent poem!
>> Mark comments to those of rational mind:
>> As usual Ant resorts to nihilistic rhetoric without providing any
>> "substance" to his allegations. At least he does not degenerate into
>> politics this time, so there may be some improvement (one can only
>> hope). Interesting that he points to substance since I have yet to
>> see something of substance coming from his pen. In fact, this post,
>> presented with the aim of character assassination, appears rather
>> infantile, and I consider it to be just be another one of his attempts
>> at "ownership" of MoQ. What arrogance, I say. Perhaps there was a
>> time when Ant tried to build on the MoQ that Pirsig began, but usually
>> all I see is a rehashing of the words that Pirsig uses. This is fine
>> for somebody writing an essay in secondary school, but is certainly
>> not appropriate for an academic philosopher. Perhaps he will surprise
>> me one day with something creative that actually breaks some ground in
>> the MoQ stucture. Again, one can only hope that his education will
>> bear some fruit at some point, but this nonsense that he posts is
>> about as far from Quality as one can get.
>> He is quite correct in presenting "artistic truth", however he does
>> not seem to understand what such truth encompasses. Such truth is one
>> of Quality, pure and simple (something lacking from his trivial posts
>> lately). If he can actually grasp what this means, he may be able to
>> start contributing to MoQ in a significant way. As it is, all writing
>> is ornamentation, since it is descriptive. If Ant believes that "bare
>> bones" writing is somehow above rhetoric, then he has fallen into the
>> typical Western trap of Truth. Once he realizes that plausibility
>> trumps truth any day, he can get down to the task of trying to
>> convince us of something.
>> I am sure he knows that Taoist Art is suggestive, and that there are
>> many translations of the Tao te Ching and indeed there is a body of
>> Taoist writings mainly from the Golden years of Ch'an which was an
>> application of Tao to Buddhism which later became Zen. This happened
>> towards the end of the first millennia. Perhaps he is not up to speed
>> on Taoism. He may not know that Lao Tzu was very suspicious of the
>> written word, and rightly so since there will always be those like Ant
>> who will create dogma out of words. He may find it interesting that
>> Buddha, Socrates, Christ, and many others did not write anything down.
>> Pirsig's writing is also suggestive, and was never meant to be
>> dogmatic. This is easy to apprehend from the tone of his "inquiry".
>> Ant appears to have taken the writings of Pirsig to a new level, one
>> in which he is king. If indeed, Ant is the disciple of Pirsig, he is
>> on his way to do as much harm to MoQ as the Church did to what Christ
>> tried to start. Fortunately he is not eloquent enough to be such a
>> disciple, and other more adept at the task will move MoQ along. Do
>> you know how many students have written thesis on Hegel (for example).
>> Only a few of these are good, but they get better as more write about
>> him. MoQ moves towards better expression since that is the standard
>> by which it operates. Ant's fame is short-lived, mainly because he
>> does not have the aptitude to listen and evolve.
>> If Ant is not egotistical, then I really do not know the meaning of
>> the word. All I hear from him is how wrong everybody else is, and how
>> right he is. (Please, Ant, this is getting old.) How about a
>> philosophical discussion, rather than some tutorial on your MoQ? I
>> really do not believe he knows what Quality is, and why there is a
>> metaphysics created around it. Rather than discuss what others are
>> presenting, he pretends to speak from a lectern on the "True MoQ", yet
>> he never says anything. The post referenced above being one example.
>> I am not sure who he thinks he is speaking to in his posts, but it
>> seems that he has an applause going on in his head and that he is a
>> leader of some kind. This is pure egotistic delusion. Perhaps he
>> will someday present a novel manner in which to present Quality, but
>> first he must become aware of Quality. Once cannot discuss Quality as
>> if it some interesting idea, just like one cannot speak of beauty as
>> if it were an interesting idea.
>> Ant, I suggest you immerse yourself in Quality before you talk about
>> it. At least then you can speak from your own mind and not keep
>> hiding under the skirt of Pirsig. Think you can take a break and do
>> Of course, if you have some specific topic of mine which you wish
>> rebut, I will welcome that. I can always learn.
>> Administrator of Quality.
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.