Hello everyone
---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:08:32 +0100 > Subject: Re: [MD] Quality-as-pre-conceptual/MOQ as conceptual. > > Craig and Dan > > 13 March you wrote to Dan: > >> To say t he laws of physics are the same on Earth as on Mars or as >> they were when the galaxies were being formed, is not to make a >> sociological statement about the comparative state of science among >> Earth scientists, little green men & disembodied scientists floating >> around billions of years ago. Rather it’s to say that the same laws >> apply here & there, now & then. If astronomers discover a new galaxy >> forming, they study it for clues to how our own galaxy formed.  Why? >>  Only because they think the same laws will apply (i.e., interaction >> between similar phenomena will be similar under similar conditions.) >Bo: > In "young" Phaedrus time SOM's (intellect's) "O" part (objective > over subjective) dominated and this was meant to kick its ass. The > "O" premises is that there is a material world governed by natural > laws, all observed by the human consciousness. This carried to its > extreme reveals the paradox and confirms the Sophist's "man the > measure" sentence. But the MOQ has no subjective leaning, it > rejects SOM's "S" part as well and it becomes kind of > embarrassing when Quality is put in Gravity's place proves that > there was no Quality before Pirsig. Hi Bo Thank you for writing. I notice you capitalize Quality so in a way you're correct. But everyone knows what quality is. That's Robert Pirsig's great insight, and that's why quality works where many other terms do not. >Bo: > Which is true, the Quality Explanation - the MOQ - came to be with > Pirsig and disproves the Summary's "Quality/MOQ" assertion. > Great theories create new realities. Newton's created the Gravity > Reality and Pirsig created the Quality Reality. However Newton's > was just a small itellectual/scientific adjustment, and from that > level seen it's obvious that gravity has been from eternity. The > MOQ postulates the levels as major reality leaps and the MOQ the > last and greatest reality leap possible. > > Further it postulates the upper-level-out-of-the-former, thus the > MOQ isn't out Pirsig's "mind" but out of the intellectual level and a > person who has entered it's meta-level will see and understand the > lower level's limited view, particularly intellect's and how its S/O > repertoire runs into paradoxes regardless the "O-over-S" or "S- > over-O". Dan: I would ask you to please provide references for your "meta-level" but I know it's impossible; there are no references anywhere in Mr Pirsig's work that point to the MOQ as a "meta-level." I see you twisting certain passages into what their author never intended, and then claiming they support your own interpretation. The last time I looked, Robert Pirsig's name was on the cover of both ZMM and LILA. He is the author and inventor of the MOQ. I have a massive amount of respect. So if it is your contention that ZMM and LILA are not a product of Mr Pirsig's mind, then where did they come from? Why is his name on the books? Bo: I know that Dan hate it when I criticize annotations in > Lila's Child as if they are his, but the latter-day Pirsig is not up to > his own ideas. Dan: No, I don't hate criticisms of LC's annotations; they are not mine. I welcome them. I enjoy dissecting the annotations, comparing them to Mr Pirsig's previous work to find contradictions. i recall that Struan Hellier found a problem with one of the annotations and it was rectified (with Mr Pirsig's permission). What I dislike is someone referring to the LC annotations in the dismissive fashion that you are wont to do. I've asked you in the past to please specify which annotations you have problems with and why but you've never taken the time. I know you're hung up on your SOL interpretation. I think that is your loss. In your zeal to spread the SOL word you continually overlook not only the LC annotations but Mr Pirsig's second book LILA. It appears to me you've seized on a few select passages from ZMM to support your thesis while ignoring the main thrust of the MOQ. I don't mean to sound harsh and I am sorry if my words come across that way. As I said, I have a great deal of respect for Robert Pirsig and his work, and that extends to his annotations in LILA'S CHILD. If anyone wants to criticize his work, they better be prepared to do more than talk a good game. Dan _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009 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/
