Bo, Reading your post only leaves me asking if you need psychological help a change in medication or you are stoned out of your gourd. Your posts follow no continuity except for the repetitious argument that one can only guess is written on wine stained index cards and copied verbatim in a drunken stupor. You are soo fucked up that I am at a loss, you are clearly insane and have some serious problems. Joe Maur is Mark twain compared to your psychotic babble.
Please get some help. with love -Ron ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:14:54 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Quality-as-pre-conceptual/MOQ as conceptual. Hi Dan 15 Mar. you wrote: > 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. Before Pirsig "...everyone knows what quality is" was not so obvious and there are other grand concepts - "beauty" for instance - and I would guess that "..everyone knows what beauty is" is just as obvious. Pirsig even hints to a "code of Art=Beauty" beyond the 4th.level meaning that IT may be the dynamic everything beyond the static levels. I just point to this because I see the Dynamic/Static split to be the Quality of the MOQ because it makes for a better, non- paradoxical, world than the Subject/Object split. Consequently I dislike Pirsig's Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics, the two are identical > 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. You really are a "bible-thumper" Of course Pirsig says that the MOQ is secondary - a mere intellectual pattern - but it is the Metaphysics of Quality that creates the static intellectual level and by no twist of logic can that level "contain" the MOQ. Ref. the container example. If you find THAT un-problematic ...phew! > 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? Do you think a metaphysics (metaphysics=reality) can be copy- righted? But your loyalty is impressive. > 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. The 97 is mentioned, then there is 102 I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV paper that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is through philosophic idealism, which says that objects grow out of ideas, not the other way around. To associate the MOQ with SOM's "subjective over objective" is its death, but this "all is ideas" seems to be the latter-day Pirsig's wont. Since at the most primary level the observed and the observer are both intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes of quantum theory have to be conflicts of intellectual assumption, not just conflicts of what is observed. "At the most primary level" must mean the metaphysical and the DQ/SQ becomes "intellectual assumptions" which follows from the "MOQ an intellectual pattern" sentence that follows from the faulty Quality/MOQ thesis. Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is observed always involves an interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed..... How come that DQ is exempted from the idea-interaction? DQ is after all part and parcel of the MOQ. According to Pirsig's Gravity example there was no quality (in the MOQ sense) before the MOQ. The MOQ is a fantastic achievement. It creates a new reality at an infinitely greater scale than Newton's which was a mere adjustment inside - what in moqish is - the static intellectual level. It rejects the S/O split that among many has spawned the "ideas/reality" one. The illusion that keeps it from being realized is the wish to make the SOM-MOQ transition a smooth intellectual adjustment. Intellect in SOM means the idea-interaction realm. In MOQ the 4th. level is the SOM itself. And that is a leap over a bottomless chasm. > 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 know if you have noticed, but DMB is slowly coming round. When he started to "translate" ZAMM to moqish the SOL is obvious. Steve Peterson has left (one doesn't admit anything, just leaves) and Arlo discusses God knows what except the MOQ so you are soon the last of the orthodox. > 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. No hard feelings Dan, your loyalty is with the person Pirsig, mine is with the MOQ which isn't an idea out of the his mind, but out the intellectual level that RMP was an unstable pattern of. In my (not sufficiently humble to be regarded as polite) opinion 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/ 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/
