Hey Andre,
This screed is all well and good, but you have failed to show that you
understand the MOQ better than anyone else. Until you do, I suggest
you climb down off your high horse and back up your criticisms with
something other than incoherent babbling.
Platt
On 19 Feb 2010 at 19:04, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Bodvar to Platt:
> As said a couple of times I think Pirsig's prostrating himself before
> Buddhism is directly counterproductive after having "received" a much
> clearer Western system of wisdom that turns circles round the woolly
> Oriental article.
>
> But to be more specific, this reflects the "Quality/MOQ" issue.To Pirsig
> the Quality=Reality insight was the all-consuming issue, afterwards he
> would better stand on one leg and stare into the sun of Quality, on the
> other hand he could not resist working out a system, but this was really
> a vice and he had to "flog" himself for this sin.
>
> However, nothing comes out of the Quality=Reality insight, it's as stale
> as the Indian fakir staring into the sun, the MOQ IS the Quality,...
>
> Andre:
> Nothing could be further from understanding and appreciating..., even
> coming remotely close to, developing a feeling for Mr. Pirsig's
> intentions, his feelings of compassion towards the current fate of the
> Western world, expressed in devising a metaphysics of Quality.
>
> Bodvar treats an millennia long history of 'Oriental' thought on
> Quality by first of all reifying it, ('the Oriental article' 0 and
> then dismissing it as such. This is arrogance (disrespect) of the
> highest order.
>
> Further, since Mr. Pirsig has been so wrong in all his attempts at
> 'improving this world' by producing the Moq, and you two find so much
> fault with it, I suggest you start up your own site.
>
> You two keep on criticising what you do not understand, and I will
> quote Mr. Pirsig where he says so (Annotation 133);
> 'This kind of comparison 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....I see a lowering of the quality of
> the MoQ if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it
> opposes.
>
> This was of course aimed at designating LILA as a SOM document, but it
> seems to me that, not only do you not understand SOM, you also do not
> understand the MoQ. (This is like Peter taking over from Jesus).
>
> The MoQ is NOT reality. How fucking stupid can you get Bodvar??? This
> is where my 'something wrong'...something wrong' antennae went into
> red. The MoQ is not reality and if you think it is, you have turned
> your outside sock inwards again.
>
> Of course you will deny, twist, stick to you static interpretation of
> the SOL/ Intellectual level (everything over the past 13 years appears
> to have revolved around this issue for you) but to show such
> disregard, such exalted position I find offensive. You do it your way
> and he does it his way but as far as I am concerned you two are the
> flies in the MoQ soup! (the ointment you have spoilt)
>
> 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/
