Dear Dan You made one of your "touch and go" appearances on 25 Feb:
> 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. It was - and is - nothing wrong with "Lila's Child", it was a great job, it's just that I disagree with some of the latter-day Pirsig utterings but that's a another matter. > 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. With this credo it's no point in starting anew, but just one question. You know the diagram section in ZAMM in which Pirsig calls the Subject/Object aggregate "intellectual ". Is that just a coincidence or slip of tongue or whatever? And Christ, in the PT letter he came a hair breadth from affirming the SOL. > 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. If majority and readyily acceptance were the criterions the MOQ itself shows you are wrong. It's a tiny minority, but within it he SOL now seems accepted, can't remember the last time it was seriously questioned ... except when DMB makes his like Caesar- in-senate-about Carthage-like statement "Beside it's my opinion that the SOL is wrong". Nice to see you anyway. 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/
