Bodvar to Andre:
But Pirsig wanted to be more Taoist than Laotse and made the error of
declaring the MOQ part of "what can be named". But for Chrissake
the MOQ merely says that DQ is dynamic, and saying this can't be any
"naming". One may be too smart ("A bridge too far").
Andre:
'Pirsig...declaring the MoQ part of 'what can be named' an error?
Pirsig himself says that it is important to keep all concepts out of
DQ. Even suggesting that Quality is 'dynamic' is a transgression.
Dynamic Quality is not this/not that.
Bodvar:
I don't know what have gone into you all not seeing
the futility of declaring language to be the "desecrator" of the holy
unity. But this is the William James pollution of the MOQ (that the
divide is Dynamic/Conceptual) that Pirsig adapted in his desperate
longing for an academical "friend".
Andre:
Maybe you need to explain this once more Bodvar but to suggest a
static part 'belonging' to Quality (i.e. SQ) is already a
transgression of the ineffable.
Not one moment is an exact same copy of the 'previous' moment.
It is only convenient to pretend it is. In other words, it is a high
quality intellectual PoV.
imho
Andre, the stubborn Dutchie living and working in the Middle Land.
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/
