Ron said pre: As Caryl Johnston states, "The problem Pirsig had was there was no rationalist framework in which his magisterial tool could make sense and unfold" I feel she suspected the same thing as Bo but fail to see the cultural implications that SOM brings to the MoQ table in contrast to the "Big picture" that MoQ ultimately supplies. It's tying these two together that brings the weirdness. Especially when you start making the shifts from SOL to MOQ ...As DmB said "things get weird." But I truly believe in my "softened" explanation, it works.
dmb says: I should ask Caryl rather than you, but I'd like to know what "the problem" is, exactly. I don't see it. What the heck is a "rationalist framework" and why does the MOQ need one to "make sense and unfold"? I'm not even sure what she means by "unfold". Also, she's talking about Barfield's evolutionary ideas as if Pirsig didn't already make evolution central to the MOQ. I don't think there is a "missing key" as far as that goes. And Pirsig not only says that the dynamic can be found in the intellect but that its the MOST dynamic of levels. The formation of the hypothesis in ZAMM, the levels in Lila, the paper on that describes physicists as creative artists. Some of the MOQ's key intellectual insights came out of that peyote meeting, etc.. There is no shortage of ways in which the 4th level is a dynamic, evolving thing. Ron: I saw parallels in Caryl's and Bo's statements. I think it all stems >From the notion of MOQ being a stand alone application when it's a plug-in. In other words it's of no use unless put to use. Let me try to gather all the stings by saying this, MoQ augments Most any intellectual pattern but it needs intellectual patterns To augment. Alone it is personal immediate experience. A state Of awareness. Translating a state of awareness to a metaphysic is where the weirdness Begins. This is relating to a rational framework or understanding. Some argue this kills it, while some argue it will forever remain An obscure mystical suggestion unless it is pragmatically put to use In a society. So you see, I find it interesting that those who advocate Against defining DQ in terms are the ones who are the most adamant about It changing society. I, like you, think Radical empiricism makes a wonderful bridge in keeping With MoQ tenets within SOM dominated culture. I also feel this is the basis of Your efforts: to gain acceptance within mainstream academia. You yourself Are tying MoQ to an accepted body of philosophical work, so I think your Efforts have more of a chance than Bo's SOL interpretation of achieving A position among accepted philosophy and actually changing things. But make no mistake, you are both pursuing the same thing. Acceptance within the cultural body and it's application. _________________________________________________________________ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
