Hi to the high-flying Dutchman
Feb 19
Bodvar before:
> > 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.
Feelings! MOQ's purpose is to free itself from SOM-as-intellect and
because intellect's great feat was to free existence from the social-
emotional level (over to intellect's rationality) the MOQ cannot return
to emotional appeal, but must be as rational as its antagonist.
> 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.
Buddhism does not speak about Quality, but my contention is that
only in the MOQ retrospect do we understand Buddhism - at least did
I - and see the likeness. What you experts are capable of ....alas!
> 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.
As said to Khoo I subscribe to all MOQ's tenets - read again M-O-Q!!!
But when Pirsig starts on the MOQ as being inferior I wince and
repeat the MOQ is the Quality! Just like there can't be any Buddha
without Buddhism ... etc.
> 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).
This stems from a "SOM as MOQ's intellectual level" thread (1998)
and Platt's post (page 396 in Lila's Child) where he supports the SOL
and concludes; "... I fully agree with Bo's insight that the SOM and the
intellectual level are one and the same. To support it , to protect it, to
avoid losing it and sinking back to "anything goes" irrationalism or a
"because God says so" mentality ...and ends with saying "..To that
end the MOQ is the best S/O answer I've found yet."
I don't find myself saying that "the MOQ is the best S/O answer " but
like above I maintain that the MOQ must surpass SOM's rationality to
escape it.
> 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.
But how ordinary stupid can you get in overlooking the fact that the
Reality/Theory - even in the quasi-moq form of Quality/MOQ - is
good old SOM? In the the Kantian form the "Thing in Itself" versus the
"Thing for Us". Remember ZAMM's about the Gravity Theory creating
the Gravity Reality? This ought to be a reminder - even for Pirsig -
but after creating the MOQ he wanders headlong into the same pitfall
as Newton did in believing that Gravity had been since "creation".
> 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)
I know your exasperated style, but has it passed you by that this
discussion has been a slow drift from an intellectual level that no-one
knew what was, towards the SOL. In the PT letter Pirsig come - as
said - within a hair's breadth of affirming it ".. no use in speaking
about an intellectual level before the Greeks..." and the Egyptians
being pre-intellect level ... etc. Admittedly he threw in the
"manipulation of symbols" definition, but this so many have scoffed at
as simply a definition of language. The more I point to these glaring
facts the angrier you all get. Not hat I mind it, but its quite hilarious
Bodvar
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/
