From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 22:23:05 GMT
Matt K stated to Dan March 20th 2005:
I just don’t understand how people can be so dismissive of all the work I’ve
put in to understanding Pirsig, and then have the nerve to call _me_
dishonest. Do you really think I’m doing this for fun? That I’m just doing
this to annoy everyone here? You could say that about certain others, like
perhaps Struan [the patronising “professional”], who just seemed to like to
come on and say nasty things. But I think, given all available evidence,
there are few people who are as obsessed about Pirsig as I am, who are as
obsessed in trying to make Pirsig matter.
Ant McWatt commented to Matt K March 21st 2005:
As my hard work (from last year) concerning Rorty wasn’t obviously
appreciated by you (and “Andy Bahn” evidently…), you have to understand why
I, for one, am rather reluctant to engage seriously with any of your new
extended essays and posts. Moreover, the fact that you had an essay titled
"Philosophologology: An Inquiry into the Study of the Love of Wisdom" and
deemed to change your e-mail address on MOQ.org last year to a pejorative
one regarding Pirsig does also rather undermine your claim that you are not
“doing this to annoy everyone here.”
Rick stated March 22nd 2005:
Sorry Ant, I know you're working your rhetorical arse off trying to cast
Matt in a negative light, but I can assure you that the title of that essay
had nothing to do with "annoying everyone here." I suggested it.
Ant McWatt points out:
Rick,
I know you suggested it. You told me in your last private message to me a
few months ago.
Rick stated March 22nd 2005:
It perfectly reflected the theme of the essay and I thought it was just kind
of fun and frankly, I resent the implication that it was intended to annoy.
Ant McWatt notes:
There is absolutely no implication here, Rick. Though I do understand that
you were having a bit of fun, I had in mind Dan’s reply to Matt from March
20th 2005:
“You probably fail to realize it but… you are definitely insulting me with
postings like your recent two-parter and your 'Philosophology' essay.”
Rick stated March 22nd 2005:
(although I take a bit of satisfaction in the fact that you've now
incontrovertibly exposed your anti-Matt bias).
Ant McWatt notes:
Actually, I’m pro-Quality. Unfortunately, it might appear that I’m
sometimes anti-Matt or anti-Scott or anti-Platt or whoever but I’m afraid it
only seems that way because intellectual quality comes above any social
niceties.
Rick stated March 22nd 2005:
I'm not sure if you actually read the essay (you should, it's great), but if
you did, you'd know why it has that title. Anyway, I highly recommend it
(along with Matt's Confessions essay) to everyone in this forum.
As someone who's been hanging around these parts lurking and contributing
for many years I can honestly say that I believe Matt's essays are best
Forum materials I've ever read.
Ant McWatt notes:
I’d disagree with that as I think there are a number of essays which throw
better light in understanding the MOQ though I thought Matt’s “Confessions”
essay was an interesting take on how people move from one set of beliefs to
another. However, the central point of my last message to Matt was an
attempt to explain why the material in his essays and posts were sometimes
simply being ignored. I gave my personal opinion about the matter and some
other general ideas about why this was the case in an effort to help him
deal with the situation.
Possibly, I have been too offhand with Matt’s enthusiasm with Rorty but I
really think that Rorty’s work (like most Western philosophy of whatever
colour) is fatally tinged with SOM. Despite all of the MOQ’s faults,
Pirsig’s Zennist break with traditional Western philosophy is a valuable one
so a return to a linguistic based type of relativism (that doesn’t recognise
Dynamic Quality above anything else!!!!) is a step in the wrong direction.
However, that doesn’t mean that useful critiques of Pirsig’s work can’t be
made, for instance, from sometimes taking a Rortyan or other type of
SOM/post-modernist stance.
Rick stated March 22nd 2005:
Nothing else has ever made me think as much or as hard or as deeply about
where Pirsig is coming from, what he's driving at, and what it is that
Pirsig really does, and doesn't, have to contribute. For anyone who's
really ready to… start asking some deeper, more cutting and important
questions about Pirsig's work, those essays are just sitting out there
waiting to point you in the best direction.
Ant McWatt notes:
Well, there you go. If this is the case then don’t you think it’s worth
clearing-up misunderstandings and innuendos so the intellectual quality of
Matt’s work can be judged without all the social baggage getting in the way?
Best wishes,
Anthony.
www.anthonymcwatt.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
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 : Tue Mar 22 2005 - 22:35:23 GMT