Hey MP:
> > [Krimel]
> > The real confusion comes from us over
> > analyzing and nit picking.
>
> MP: Man, if that doesn't sum it up I don't know what will.
>
> IMO making the MoQ into an M is the source of all the problems being
> wrestled
> with in the first place. M is SOM; making an *M*oQ in response to a
> sensing of
> Quality is where all this trouble begins. SOM is the problem and trying to
> replace it through its own language only transforms the replacement.
>
> Its like jumping into a pigsty to tell people in it they can be clean
> outside it; the
> more you persist at it, the messier you get and the less they believe
> you.
Your observation is correct (as are most of your views). But perhaps a
reminder that Pirsig agrees with you,, with a caveat, is in order:
"Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate
activity. But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless,
doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's
the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be
purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person
who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical
meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born-and to whose birth no thought
has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less
pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a
part of life." (Lila, 5)
Nevertheless, to use S/O language to convey what is essentially
inexpressible in S/O language appears to be a contradiction. I raised this
issue many moons ago. In the MD I had written:
"After all, the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning."
To which Pirsig countered in note 133 in Lila's Child::
"It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures
such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known.
(But) the MOQ is not subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember
that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or
anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by
reasoning of any kind. Therefore to say the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning
is as useful as saying the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It
doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it
doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ."
When we begin talking about inexpressible "essences" we're into divine
territory -- a point if I recall correctly you have made a number of times.
Platt
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/
