On 8 Jul 2009 at 10:19, david buchanan wrote: > dmb says: > And yet you are a very smart guy and you understand it better than almost everybody else. Ever notice how the worst of the mis-readers are forever blaming Pirsig while also completely missing the point and flatly contradicting his claims? For example, Bo's claim that the intellectual level is equal to SOM flatly contradicts Pirsig's own description of where SOM fits into the MOQ. (Pirsig says the first and second levels are "objective" while the 3rd and 4th levels are "subjective".) Ham's emphasis on subjectivity and Krimel's emphasis on objectivity both show that they don't even understand the problem that the MOQ's radical empiricism solves. Platt's emphasis on social level values distorts the MOQ so that it's FUBAR. These readings aren't even close and yet they are among the most stubborn, uncomprehending contributors here. I think it is no accident that everyone of them rejects and/or misunderstands the MOQ's mysticism and radical empiricism. Without that, as I see it, the MOQ can't be understood coherently. I would even go so far as to say that this is the only thing that stands between you and a completely coherent understanding of the MOQ. Maybe that's why it seems I'm so hard on you. You have the intelligence and the philosophical background to incorporate this part and so I want to push you in such a way that you'll do just that. Maybe that's why I get so annoyed when you shrug off that part of the MOQ, cause I think it's the element that makes the whole thing work, that makes the MOQ coherent.
[Platt] The only thing FUBAR is dmb's opinion of himself. 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/
