Hello Andrè On 26 Nov. you wrote:
> Please gentlemen, refer to page numbers when you quote (!). I don't want > to get into the cross-fires of (perhaps) longstanding arguments and I do > not want to play the eff'n social worker. This whole thing has been going > on for a long time and I am certainly still grappling with it (also to do > with Marsha's entry in this post). Right you are about quotes and also about "long-standing arguments". > I think it is fair to suggest that if Pirsig argues that '...since the end > of World War 1 was that *the* intellectual level had entered the picture > and taken over everything.' And then says : It was *this* intellectual > level that was screwing everything up' we must safely conclude that he > meant the self same intellectual (SOM) level. If he had've meant anything > other than 'level' he surely would have used the concept 'pattern'. Sure it's fair, for your benefit I would have liked to exhibit some more evidence here, but for now.... > Of course this is the big thing and struggle in ZMM i.e. how to expand > 'reason' ( this SOM intellectual level) to reach and 'represent'/ > reflect', Quality, without gimmics, without 'style' syruped all over it > (ZMM). In ZAMM Pirsig spoke from SOM's premises when he gave campfire talks and here "reason" is a mind that has to be expanded to make room for the Quality Idea. In the MOQ however the 4th. level is fixed (I mean its basics, intellectual patterns have flourished beyond imagination yet all have the S/O matrix at their root) and cannot be expanded to include the DQ/SQ one lest it turns into a neutral idea- container like SOM's mind ... what the MOQ rejects. > And to follow Bodvar's line of 'reasoning': the procedure Pirsig > follows ( i.e.to create this 'bridge' ...this 'expansion' of SOM into MoQ) > is contradictory and flawed. Perhaps it simply comes down to agreeing on > whether Pirsig has been able (i.e. to everyone's conviction and > satisfaction),to (1) penetrate and adequately ' expand/subsume/TAME (!) > this level i.e a combination of SOM/MoQ)? has he (2) created a competing > 'mode' of reasoning (the MoQ) at the same level?, or (3) has he created > (of necessity, or by contradiction or faillure to convince) another level? > Pfheew. Is this an adequate, fair summary of the stated difficulty? Or am > I missing a link? These observations are valid, However, Pirsig could not foresee all arguments that we have had years to ponder. You know how it is when one sits hammering on a post thinking along one's own chosen track and then upon receiving comments see a snag or more. Pirsig however have known the SOL interpretation for long and when he last answered a letter from me he said that if it had value it would "percolate to the top". most Solomonic. > PS Bodvar, I think what Jesus said wasn't really vague...he was very > direct, it's just that along the historical line some copyists and > interpreters of his words had to water it down because it threatened some > people's power, politics, influence and status. i.e their static social > patterns. Points taken. Bodvar 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/
