Hi Matt
In the present "tsunami" of ill-edited and silly posts you are a relief.
On 2 Feb. u wrote:
...... much and reminisced a bit about the old days at the Lila
Squad and I agree about it all. the LS started along with the
Internet - its popular phase at least - and I remember printing out
every post as if important documents. Hah! one single month
these days makes for a whole year back then.
I really can't remember your initial stance, I have the impression
that you went through several phase as the skeptical "fallen
priest", "enraged endorphin", I'm not sure even this day what you
think about the MOQ. The Rorty debate you had going with DMB
sounded as if Rorty somehow overrides Pirsig IYO, but then,
disagreeing with DMB is a good sign. ;-)
Speaking about the "devil", I can't forget DMB forceful entry
around the same time that you entered (?) and his great
knowledge about the old mythologies that he correctly attributed to
the social level (this backing the SOL) and his still skeptical
attitude regarding some of most impossible utterings by the latter-
day Pirsig in Lila's Child.
But then prostrating himself before Paul Turner and after that
referring to "mysticism" when logic failed him. If the MOQ is to
earn its laurels it has to stick to its Western "guns" i.e. use intellect
(the level) as its springboard and drop the "Zen" affinity, to elevate
metaphysics to a new of LOGOS not lapsing back to MYTHOS. By
the way, Eastern philosophy is only mystical seen from SOM which
proves my point.
Matt:
> On the actual topic at hand, I'm afraid I don't have much to say.
> It's very difficult for me to follow you, partly because I find
> numerous parts contentious and I can't tell where the important
> contentions are. You move too quickly for me. But you said this--
Here must be some will to NOT understand. I point to the simple
fact that the MOQ diagram has a Quality box on top which spawns
ANOTHER DQ. There is only one DQ that - along with SQ - makes
up Q-reality. Contentious or not it's plain.
Matt:
> What you are pointing to is an ambiguity in Pirsig's terms. Quality
> is supposedly different from Dynamic Quality
What do you think is the logic behind the ambiguity of a Quality
different from Dynamic Quality?
> ..... but when you use the same terms ("ultimate reality," "immediate
> experience," "undefined") to describe both, it becomes difficult to
> tell how to tell the difference between the two (I talked about this in
> my review of a paper Anthony wrote for the Essay Forum).
Sure I use those terms because Pirsig in LILA (on James) uses
them and if mentioning Quality by words is what soils it and
necessitates an even higher Quality, that one is soiled once written
about and another one and over it is needed ... ad absurdum.
> You're taking a definite stand, on both the ill-fated nature of the
> ambiguity (which, if I'm not mistaken, Pirsig deliberately wanted) and
> the way out (it was a mistake to have two terms at all). But your
> mode of enunciating your position has almost always, and here I take
> comfort in what seems to be a majority opinion, been very weird and
> difficult to understand.
The Copernican cosmology's premises was "very weird and
difficult to understand" from the Ptolemaian cosmology's premises.
This argument is invalid. Come Matt, you have cast yourself in the
arbiter's role as elevated above out petty argumentation. Now I call
upon you to be the jury
Bo
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/
