Bodvar to Mary, Andre, John, All: This argument about the impossibility of "conceptualizing" anything without the subject (the viewer) is playing straight into SOM's hand and John (the kindergarten) and Andre (the apostate) gladly grabbed it. One must - as Pirsig at his best does - point to the paradoxes the conceptualizing subject/conceptual reality creates. This is after all what the MOQ is supposed to repair, and what IT ONLY CAN REPAIR IN THE SOL INTERPRETATION. When Pirsig's corrupted intellect failed to dissolve the praradoxes (the mind/matter for instance) he got all sore and started about the SOM not being important and the MOQ "setting sail" without SOM. Grrrrrr!!! The MOQ created SOM and it must find its place inside the MOQ
Andre: I'll take this by bits and pieces Bodvar. You start off by suggesting that conceptualisation is possible without viewer and viewed. I wholeheartedly concur. It is your SOL that suggests the division between viewer and viewed. That is why John prefers the kindergarten and I adopt the role of apostate. Pirsig did not corrupt intellect nor the intellectual level. You did by inventing the SOL which, as far as I am concerned is predicated upon the belief (!) that the MoQ 'emerged' from SOM in the same way as the social level emerged from the biological level. I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. The MoQ did not emerge from SOM. I have told you this many times but you have not directly responded to this assertion. At no stage has Mr. Pisrig suggested that the MoQ has arisen out of SOM. At no stage has Mr. Pirsig suggested that we should discard/nullify a S/O analysis. He has been at pains to stress over and over again that such an analysis is fine...it has its value BUT needs expanding...and he has done so. The only beef the MoQ has with SOM is that it doesn't accept values. How can the idea of 'values' as the basic groundsuff of everything emerge from a non-value rationality/reasoning? This is impossible. It must have come from somewhere else...and that is why I reffered you to the Phaedrus entering India an empirical scientist and leaving one,... to the continuation of the passage: ' However, he'd been exposed to a lot and had acquired a kind of latent image that appeared in conjunction with many other latent images later on'(ZMM, p 136) And doesn't he 'laterally'drift on many occassions in ZMM? The intellectual level gets corrupted when the claim is made, as you do, that it is dominated by S/O reasoning. You continue to assert that a proper way of understanding the MoQ is only possible by recognising your self created SOL gate. I take this as a form of bigotry Bodvar that defies experience! Where has Mr. Pirsig failed to resolve the Mind/Matter paradox? Where has Mr. Pirsig suggested that a S/O analysis is not important? These are just 2 examples whereby you blatantly disregard the fact (to substantiate your claim) and ignore the opposite! The MoQ does not need the SOL interpretation. This is your misreading of ZMM and LILA and your only doing based upon an inferred methodological emergence of the MoQ out of SOM. By reasserting this you de-value the MoQ. To quote part of annotation 133: ' This kind of comparison is what I have meant by the term 'philosophology'. It is done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but only to classify it so that they don't have to see it as anything new'. A bit like Northrop's criticism of Hume, whom he did not consider an empiricist at all, rather a rationalist. You have staked the last 12 years on this Bodvar so you will not let go of this. There is celebrity status at stake here for you... . Ahhh, those fucking mirrors. For nothing that it is worth... still flying... . 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/
