Hi Folks, (Dan, Doug & Marsha mentioned). PS - mentioning that non-SOMist langauge earlier, I mentioned "Dan" - Ooops - I meant "Doug" (Quantonics) Renselle of course - still ploughing his own furrow with his M0Qish "private language".
PPS - if people don't like my Catch-22 characterization - perhaps people should listen to Marsha more .... she can see the hole we "western males" dig with our SOMist discourse. Ian On 7/21/08, Ian Glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mati, > > I think DMB is right that most of the subject matter in that Reet > example is Social (maybe Joe is right that some are intellectual > values, but again as DMB says, the Q&A could have been better > constructed to make that clearer), but the real point is, I believe, > in your own closing remark Mati. > > Careful with that Aristotelian knife - I've been calling it Catch-22 > for some time - you say "I sincerely and respectfully don't think this > is the way Pirsig intended for MOQ to be used, remember in MOQ the > scalpel first cut, SQ/DQ." > > Spot on. > > By "analysing" a piece of data like that - dead subject matter, > reported in text - we have a strong tendency to start with the SOMist > first intellectual cut. Our "analysis" is SOMist (historically > intellectual), whatever the subject matter ... in fact (sympathetic to > Krim's point) simply focussing on the division of MoQ into the layers > as subject matter areas is a SOMist perspective. > > I have no simple answer, but I think the source of the confusion is > real. Unless we invent a non-SOMist language for our discourse (which > I also mentioned earlier). Pirsig himself used rhetorical narrative, > rather than "scholarly discourse". > > Ian 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/
