Hi Bo
Perhaps I missed it in my reading of Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner (
http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html ) but I don't see
anything to support your claim. In fact what I do see is an outright
rejection of your position:
"The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation but some
kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the MOQ that
I know of that leads to this conclusion."
Robert Pirsig to Paul Turner (
http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html )
So where in the letter does Pirsig do as you say and come within a
'hairs breadth' of your (incorrect) position?
Horse
On 20/02/2010 08:59, [email protected] wrote:
[SNIP]
I stick to all MOQ tenets, the only point of deviation is the 4th. static
level, but over the years Pirsig has wavered from outright rejection
(Lila's Child) to within a hair's breadth of the same standpoint (Paul
Turner letter)
--
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an
attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine
in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
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/
