Hi Ant, Thank you for your "thoughtful" response. I had forgotten that you offered me a copy of your Ph.D. I would like to read it. Please let me know how to effect this transfer of knowledge.
On 7/17/12, Ant MacWatt <antmacwatt@hotm...> wrote: > > > > Andre to Mark, July 16th 2012: > > > >> I refer you to my earlier suggestion to get a copy of Anthony's > >> PhD...Anthony has made you a very good offer and what does he get? Can > >> you remember what you said? You said something like: ' Well Anthony > >> hasn't given (!) me a copy yet so maybe he doesn't want me to have > >> one...SO DON'T BLAME ME' for not having a copy !!!!!!!!!!!!! Now what > >> type of reasoning is that??? > > > > Mark: > > Andre, are you working on commission here? > Is this an "offer I can't > > refuse"? Are you going to send your > strong men to force me to buy it… > > > > Ant MacWatt: > Now Mark, those “out-of-the-box” ideas are interesting; they could be more > effective than > the usual marketing ploys that these Californian marketing companies try to > sell me nearly every day. In fact, have > you thought of a career change? I > think these (rather statically minded) people could do with your help. > (BTW, I did offer Mark – off-line - a free > copy of the PhD but, so far, this has been ignored). > > > Mark: I> am not blaming anyone.
> Ant MacWatt: > Mark, > this is the kind of disingenuous rhetoric of yours which I have been > complaining about as all words are value laden. > The closest we get to neutral words here is the signing off “Moq_Discuss > mailing list” information at the end of each post. To dismiss a critique of > one’s own writing by simply saying, for instance, “Not me guv, I only wrote the words that stated ‘you’re the biggest fucker in the world’ and it’s not my fault that you’ve taken this personally” beggars belief. No wonder Andre thinks you have a personality disorder!
Mark responds: Ant, you do not know me. But if you did, you would know that I do not go around blaming people. My comment concerning the creation of value through the reading of what another has written stands. If anything it is a request to read what I write in a more favorable light. I simply promote discussion on topics that I believe should be investigated. Dismissal without investigation is simply bigoted.
I do not think I have written that "you are the biggest fucker in the world", although you may have written that to me on occasion. You will find my posts to be opinions, and any insults are simply in response to ones which I have received, for the purposes of waking one up. Yes, even Zen uses that technique. The insults in this forum that I receive seem to be based on insecurity.
I am excited that you would find "little me" to be a threat. This must mean that what I write has struck a nerve in your complacency with MoQ. However, I am sure you realize that if you "knew it all", you would probably move on to more rewarding subjects. Therefore, I can take your negativity to what I write as justification that such writing should be written (so to speak ). I am sure you welcome debate in your current employment. The internet provides a broader platform.
That you refuse to explain what it is that I write which you disagree with still baffles me. You simply say "wrong, wrong, wrong" without any justification. Such responses do not have much to do with philosophy. Perhaps I am more intelligent than you. Who knows? > > Mark > Smith continued:
> My > point was that this gut reflex some people have to my posts is purely > emotional. > > > > > > Ant Ant MacWatt: > Interesting point here though, Mark. I think you’re actually talking about the Dynamic response that many contributors have here when they first read your posts. > They can’t immediately put their finger on why they get this negative response about them but – for anyone who can be really bothered – you can carefully go through each paragraph of one of your typical posts and then intellectually work out why they are so “off-the-mark” (so to speak).
Mark comments: Here is a good example of your claiming something without supporting evidence. Am I simply to take your word for it? Will you take my word if I state that you are "off the Ant" without further explanation. Come on Ant, you can do better than that.
This dynamic response you speak of is so heavily laden with static preconceptions, that the dynamic has completely disappeared. Surely you can see that. As such this 'dynamic' response is completely without freedom and simple a jump from one static to another. The point is to free oneself from the static. As you have stated yourself, "beginner's mind". Treat each post as something new, without all that baggage that one brings with one. Look beyond static quality. Look beyond the words in Lila and try to see what the intentions of them were. Words are just words, it is what the reader does with them that matters. > Ant MacWatt: > Again, > personally, I think your posts are “getting there” (a philosophologist who > had never read Pirsig’s books would probably wonder what the fuss is all about here) but compared to an average Dave Buchanan or Arlo Bensinger post they don’t help my understanding of the MOQ. And, unfortunately, for a beginner, your posts are going to be misleading. And that’s my real problem with them.
Mark: It is interesting to know that you are no longer a "beginer". Have you graduated in life to knowing about Quality? Do you know enough about it to be able to say that your metaphysics of such is the best possible? All I can say, is that this arrogance will only get you stuck in some quicksand. Drop this pretence and move on to betterness. We are all beginers. We are all investigating what Quality has to do with our lives. It never ends! Let go of your Ph.D. and move on. It is Quality that is of import, not the manner in which it is presented. Such presentation is degenerate and only leads down a deep well. I am just trying to encourage you to move on. I constantly come across people such as yourself who are waiting for everyone to catch up with them. They just keep waiting and wondering why others just do not catch on. This is not Arete, this is just arrogance. > > Ant MacWatt continues: > Unfortunately, > because you tend to post so much, it would be quite a commitment to keep > correcting> them (especially on a line on line basis which they really need). If I was> Horse, I’d consider limiting you to two posts (of five pages max) a week, say for six months, so this Discussion group can (hopefully) deal with them properly. > Otherwise, and presuming you sincerely want to make a positive contribution > regards the MOQ, maybe you should consider just writing essays for a while > and post sections of them here occasionally (or, directly to people who’d help you, > off-line) for comment and revision. The latter would also save Horse having to monitor you all the time. Anyway, for what it’s worth, that’s my take on this matter. > Mark: Come on Ant! You do not have to read my posts. Some people get something from them, and I have more discussions off-line than on. Some with whom I correspond do not even post on the forum but get my opinions through a Google search or something. Surely you must get the same thing. Is this forum overwhelmed with too many posts? Have you been in other philosophy forums where each subject has got multiple threads going at once? There is no big master who tries to control what is said, except maybe to state that insulting another is not appropriate. Most of these forums are self patrolling so that any insulting is simply shunned by the rest. You would not stand a chance in such forums.
What I see here is an attempt to "control the message". Like there is some MoQ inquisition out there. The problem with this is that such control destroys the message. Who is to say what a “positive contribution”is? Remember the quote which starts out ZAMM? You really need to take that to heart since that sets the premise for Quality. Quality is not some thing that can be described in one strict way as you seem to wish. If you seek to “correct” an expression of Quality, then good luck putting it into a box. The metaphysics of Quality does not stand on its own, it requires Quality since that is what it is describing. Try using some words and phrases and concepts outside of what Pirsig has written, it is far from complete.
Any metaphysical representation must continue to move forward. The metaphysics is simply a tool to introduce one to a reality composed of Quality. The presentation is trivial at best. Don't get yourself stuck in that mess of static quality. You are better than that! Move within Quality, and, with that perspective, tell us what you think. We all know what Pirsig has said, it is what he doesn't say which is more important, for that is the body of his work. > Again, my posts are not meant to diminish what others say. In fact they are meant to expand on such statements through the principles of discussion. If you truly believe what you say, then show us. I am on your side, Quality is important. It's presentation needs to be formatted in a more universal manner. It can become mainstream again like it was in the '70s. It is not just some clever twisted metaphysical logic, it is much more than that. In fact, it is not the metaphysics at all, just like a description of a mountain top is not the mountain top. It is what one sees from the mountain top that is important. That is what we want to hear from you. Now that you understand Quality, what do you see?