Bravo Andre! Well said.
You prick. On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]>wrote: > Bodvar to Marsha: > I agree, only that IMO the Sophists were (what was to the become) the "S" > part of the S/O aggregate. The Truth-ists were clearly what > became "the objectivists" and the there-is-no-truth-except-what-we- > agree-upon would become "the subjectivists". These two as > existence's fundamental fault is what the MOQ substitutes with its > DQ/SQ "fault" (I know you go for the Quality as whole and it is whole in > the > sense that both DQ and SQ are Quality. > > I also still agree with you that it would be proper for the > > Dynamic/static (the MoQ) point-of-view to reign on its own level. > Not as a static level but as the meta-level that it actually is supposed to > be. > > Andre: > Dear Bodvar and Marsha: there is untold value in suggesting that the > intellectual level is the S/O aggregate. I would almost say that an > appreciation of the MoQ ( and the incredible effort R.M.Pirsig has made) is > not understood properly without the division of the universe into subjects > and objects in the first place. > We all know of the childhood stuff some of us went through being confronted > with a clock. In order to find out how it worked we pulled it to bits and > afterwards re-assembled it (hopefully in working order) so we found out > what > made it tick. > Science has worked in the same way: to cut up, to divide, to specialise, to > separate subject from object. What has this shown us? An incredible look at > the richness out of which everything exists and an incredible balance > through which everything is contained. > > As I mentioned before somewhere, science is very good at pulling things > apart but terrible at putting things back together (in a cohesive, > sensible, metaphysical way).It seems to me that the dialectical scientific > investigation has its merits but only to pull apart and expose, let the > rhetorical way put it into some perspective with the Good as the > fundamental > organising reality...the aesthetic approach. > > What I am trying to get at is the picture of your SOL (as it is placed here > on the MD) as a painting in the gallery (SOM is dead and buried). In some > ways I picture your SOL as a 'virtual' hallway through which to enter... > kind of a memory lane... before the MoQ vibrations are introduced.And then > I > stumble...hesitate and try to orientate myself: is it possible to have two > visions of the MoQ? The static and the dynamic one. It is not possible to > make the MoQ static (Pirsig for God! and another religion is born) by > virtue > of its own dynamics. > Then I see arrows pointing: MoQ ..this way...MoQ that way...and I find a > opening...and above the opening it says: Quality... just follow your > nose...and you step inside and a little postcard is hanging in the air.It > is > a picture of a cliff-face and the caption reads:This is fromwhere Castaneda > jumped... . > > To tell this stuff I have to trap my thoughts in time and cement them on > virtual paper...making them static representations of the continuous flow > of > my thoughts, collapsing the waves of an understanding difficult to pass on > as I have to cut up, divide, separate me from my experience...always > detracting from the experience in the process. What a prick! > > Andre > 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/
