Hello everyone
---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:51:09 +0100 > Subject: Re: [MD] Quality-as-pre-conceptual/MOQ as conceptual. > > Dan and MD. > > 17 March you wrote: > >> I'm not interested in keeping score but I will tell you, if dmb is >> coming over to your side then I'll eat my monitor. I won't even chew >> it up. I'll swallow it whole. And I think Steve has started his own >> blog. I drop in to read it from time to time. >Bo: > He will of course deny it officially when he returns from school, but > note that he has been forced to retreated from one position after > another. First the "radical pragmatic" one where he long held that > Phaedrus' original position was "pre-concept/conceptual" which is > wrong, it was - still is - "pre-intellect/intellect" ("intellect"=SOM") . Dan: I'd have to go back and re-read your exchange with Dave to answer properly but offhand I saw no retreat from him on his original position. >Bo: > Next the issue about Indo-European language's grammar as what > inititated SOM, indicating that such cultures being "intellectual" > (after all you all agree that SOM is part of intellect ..no?) long > before the 4th. level. Dan: Not the way you see it... subject/object metaphysics (as I understand it) is a name given by Robert Pirsig to a collection of intellectual quality patterns of value prevalent in Western culture. It isn't seen as a "part of intellect" in Eastern cultures so much. Which of course leads to your SOL equals intellect downfall. Bo: Well, DMB shall have that he argues > rationally and when understanding that his position is untenable he > at least drops it. That goes for Paul Turner too, he understood that > the letter supports the SOL as much as it rejects it. Dan: Believe it or not, it does get tiring arguing the same points to you over and over again. You claim victory yet it is victory by attrition. We (I include myself as I've been there and you know it) grow weary of you twisting everything to your point of veiw. What's the use of debating someone who's cup is full and who refuses to empty it? >Bo: > But a metaphysical shift isn't done in a fortnight - shouldn't lest we > are left in a dynamic vortex - SOM took around 2,5 K years to > establish itself in the West. We believe Greek philosophy to have > begun as known from the books but there may have been > generations before the historical names. Likewise we may be long > gone before the real (Phaedrus') MOQ breaks through. The > current semi-SOM variety and the effort to align it with the very > philosophy it rejects will prevent it. Dan: I honestly don't know anything about this. It seems way out in left field and I am too tired to run after it. >Bo: > It must be the first time in the history of philosophy that the creator > of a new system starts with a "strong" interpretation and changes > to a "weak" one. Dan: Again, you seem to ignore most of Mr Pirsig's work and deride the man in a way I find sad and confused. >Bo: > Thanks for the good words Dan. I have been invited to show my > paintings at a gallery come June and will have to concentrate on > that in the months to come. Dan: That's fantastic! Good luck... I'm sure you'll fair well. All the best, Dan PS You still have some answers hanging from my last post to you as well as this one; I trust when you're able to once again put your mind to it and fingers to keyboard that you'll remember me. _________________________________________________________________ Get quick access to your favorite MSN content with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A 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/
