Hello everyone
I am not a MOQ scholar like Dave and Ant. Nor do I belong in the category of author like Robert Pirsig. I am just another guy who had the great fortune to catch Mr Pirsig's eye when I uploaded the original version of LILA'S CHILD to my website. I owe a great debt to Bodvar. He's the one who put me in touch with Mr Pirsig and it is he who is most responsible for the birth and gestation of LC. I know the final draft of LC didn't suit him. To me, on the other hand, the annotations that Mr Pirsig shared shed a great deal of light on many questions I had. It is a treasure trove of knowledge for me. But again, I am not in the intellectual league of others here. In putting together any book, the author necessarily picks and chooses what portions to highlight and what to gloss over. Another person would have chosen different thrums for LC I have no doubt. But since I am the one who did the choosing, LC turned out as it turned out. I know many people aren't happy with certain aspects of LC, like the definition of intellect. To me though, I already knew what intellect meant. I am sure anyone who has made it through 2 of Mr Pirsig's books also knows what intellect means. So it made no sense in continuing my opposition to Bodvar's SOL. In fact, the more intimate I became with the MOQ, the less I found I had to say about it. Finally it seemed better to just shut up and let others find their own way too. I enjoy reading Dave's posts. He is continually evolving and growing in his thinking. I can scarce keep up on all the reading he cites. I also enjoy reading Bodvar's posts but if pressed I would have to say (all in all) that while he seems to impress newcomers to the group, it is a very small minority who continue to support his SOL idea once they've gotten their feet under them, so to speak. Anyway, it's good to see the discussion group flourishing after nearly a dozen years. And it's good to see all the new contributors as well as some of the old familar voices. Thank you all. And a big thank you to Horse for continuing to support this discussion group. Dan > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:27:09 -0700 > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy. > > > Bodvar (often) says: > > ...Here I describe intellect's own - internal - view. It regards everything > through its S/O glasses and as said in case of language it manifests in > concepts=subjective/what it conceptualizes= objective. Get it? > > > dmb says: > I get what you're saying. As you see it, the distinction between subjective > and objective more or less equates to the distinction between static > intellectual patterns and Dynamic Quality and this is why you're concerned > about Pirsig's claim that the MOQ is to be distinguished from the DQ that it > talks about. Thus, you think, the MOQ has slipped back into SOM. Isn't that > about right? > > First of all, SOM fits into the static side of the MOQ so that subjectivity > is equal to the 3rd and 4th levels and objective reality is equal to the > first and second levels of static quality. Your concern, however, is > predicated on the notion that objective reality is equal to Dynamic Quality. > These two cannot even be compared, let a alone equated. As Pirsig puts it in > chapter 29, DQ is neither physical nor psychical. It is the pure, > undifferentiated experience that logically precedes those categories. > > Secondly, the intellect makes distinctions and cuts things up in either case, > whether we're talking about SOM or the MOQ. Both are derived from experience > but SOM cuts things up differently than the MOQ does. In either case, these > intellectual descriptions have to account for the experienced difference > between, let's say, reading about rocks in a geology book and stubbing your > toe. SOM will construe this as the difference between mental experience and > physical experience and not only that but also says these are the only two > categories possible because all of reality is either one or the other, even > though there are big problems trying to explain how these two categories are > related. But the MOQ dissolves the gap between mind and matter by putting the > four levels together in an evolutionary relationship and, again, by saying > that DQ is neither mind nor matter. > > Thirdly, you seem to think that the MOQ's intellectual level is equal to SOM > simply because it makes distinctions. But that's just what intellect does. > The mystics of all cultures are interested in going beyond intellect and very > often you'll hear this expressed in terms of going beyond the pairs of > opposites. See, regardless of whether or not one is working to get beyond SOM > or any other intellectual description, the trick is to see that intellect > always chops things into pairs, pairs that more or less define each other; up > and down, good and evil, hot and cold, wet and dry, human and divine, man and > woman, child and geezer, static and dynamic, subjective and objective, etc., > etc.. Unlike SOM, however, the MOQ already has the transcendence of the pairs > of opposites built right into it. Again, DQ is neither physical nor psychical > and is in fact characterized as undivided. Within the intellectual > description DQ and sq are opposites but DQ is not a pair of anything. It is > undif > ferentiated experience, an experience prior to any such conceptualizations. > And of course the MOQ objects to the notion that some kinds of experience can > be dismissed as unimportant on account of it being "just" subjective. In the > MOQ, ideas and concepts are not less real or important that rock and rain. > > I mean, the MOQ can attack and replace SOM but in doing so it still has to > account for the kinds of experience that SOM construes as mental and > physical, subjective and objective. These distinctions were, after all, drawn > from experience. As William James points out, mental water can't put out a > physical fire. The difference between them is real enough that the failure to > recognize it will get people killed. Replacing SOM with the MOQ does not > alter this fundamental experientially known difference. It simply explains > this distinction differently. I mean, making distinctions is not a problem > per se and it is not an inherently SOMish thing to do. It's just what > intellect does. The problem with SOM is not that it makes distinctions but > rather the problem is the particular distinctions it makes. > > Finally, from my point of view you have been spreading confusion about the > MOQ for a long time and, obviously, I'm not too happy about it. You know > this. I've tried to explain this in various ways at least a dozen times and > every once in a while I get irritated enough to get rude about it. It is > extremely frustrating because you tend to dismiss every credible explanation > and every voiced objection and apparently it doesn't matter that these > explanations come from the author, the only guy in the world with a Ph.D. in > the MOQ or from a Master's student like me. Why is this not good enough for > you? How do you figure that you know better than people who've actually > studied philosophy? It probably seems outrageous for me to say something like > this, but Jesus, how about a little humility, a little deference? I suppose > it's not impossible but what are the chances that Pirsig, McWatt and I are > all wrong about the MOQ while you alone understand it? I'd say the chances > are pretty damn > slim. > > Oh shit, I suppose it doesn't help to berate you. What can I do to get you to > seriously ponder all the various explanations I've dished up? Thanks to the > interdisciplinary nature of the Master's program I've been in for the last > several years, I've explained the MOQ in terms of pragmatism, empiricism, > mythology, psychology, mysticism, art, cultural evolution, political conflict > and religion. And what, by contrast, have you brought to the table? As far as > I can tell, nothing but a weird little pet theory that doesn't make sense, > that nobody in a position to know can agree with. To be less than kind about > it, this borders on the delusional. Thus, you're freaking me out. > > Sorry. It had to be said. > > dmb > _________________________________________________________________ It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Same_022009 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/
