> [Chris]
> Mh. o/o doesn't affect other patterns, just the way
> we look upon them. And
> all of the world. But I'm trying to come to grips
> with what you think is
> wrong with this. You and others. So far I have got:
> "We think Bodvar is
> pompous" and "fluffy stuff doesn't qualify into the
> intellectual level" is
> there anything else? I am sincerely wondering.
SA: First, Bodvar is pompous. Bo said in a post not
too long ago, which he does state from time to time,
this as follows:
[MD] What is metaphysics to you?
Fri Feb 29 02:55:50 PST 2008
"...but add all from the list above - Pirsig too
- because all
who believe that the MOQ is a mere theory ABOUT
Quality aren't
true Quality Metaphysicians."
SA continues: Bo doesn't understand where we're
coming from, no matter how many times we try to
explain to him, he's caught up in what, I believe, he
believes, is his prize, award winning SOL. And the
SOL must live on. I don't know anybody that thinks on
the forum, that the moq is ONLY a "mere theory", but
I've repeated this to Bo many times, but again, he's
the ONLY "true Quality Metaphysician".
What I don't like about the SOL is its'
exclusivity of the intellect to s and o's only. The
reasoning that the world is EITHER this OR that. Bo
states s/o is SEPARATE. I don't think s's and o's are
separate but they are intertwined.
short answer, gotta go,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
