Horse, Previously Horse: > As I've already pointed out, my main aim in my post directed at Bo was to > inform others that his project is not endorsed by Pirsig - I did this > because Bo persistently tries to imply that Pirsig is sympathetic to his > position and this is untrue.
Mati: As far as I am concern you both are dealing with half truths. Yes Pirsig does not come out and say, "Bo is right". However there is a lot of what Pirsig says that leave a lot room for interpretation. For myself I don't see myself as a newbie to the world of MOQ and like Bo are intentions like so many of us is to further our understanding of MOQ and attempt to discuss and interpret what Pirsig has said. The issue of intellect is a long standing one. I tried to share that concern in Liverpool in 2005. Based on my very limited and brief correspondence and relations with Pirsig I would suggest that he indeed ain't supporting what Bo has said. I will also suggest he isn't outright dismissing him either. Based on what I know Pirsig doesn't really believe this discussion of defining and refining our understanding as to what is intellect as a significant part of the MOQ discussion. Not because it has been resolved as an issue but rather there is more to MOQ than all of this intellect nonsense (paraphrasing him). That being said those of us who don't think this discussion is nonsense, try to discuss it and further define/refine our understanding to get a handle on it. As I see intellect as the weakest link in MOQ, I value MOQ too much to let it falter into obscurity based my perceived weakness. > I also get very annoyed when Bo, in order to promote his own version of the > MoQ, disrespects Pirsig in so many ways and portrays him as someone who > doesn't understand his own body of work. Only Bo truly understands it and > all others who don't agree with him are fools. Mati: I don't see it as Bo's version of MOQ. Based on what I know he respects Pirsig's work greatly like most of us. He has tried so many ways to be true to what Pirsig pursued in ZMM and delivered in Lila. But again there is this sticky issue of intellect that seems to stick out like a sore thumb. I have a sincere and deep respect for Pirsig's work but respectfully will suggest that his view of intellect falls short in the paradigm of MOQ that he created. This is not to dismiss his contribution, but just like Pirsig was true to himself in digging for a truer understanding of life, so should we. Just like acknowledging Aristotle contribution to philosophy is immense with SOM, it is finally time to find something better and move on to MOQ. As part of his assertion that those who do believe what he is saying are fools, I get your frustration. Yet when it is balanced in light of the unending defense of the idea that S/O divide is the basis for intellect, based on the tennents that Pirsig himself prescribes, he has his frustrations as well. Horse: > Bo's work rests entirely on his own interpretation of the MoQ and goes > beyond saying that SOM is the dominant thought pattern of the Intellectual > Level - his position is that is is the entirety of the Intellectual Level. Mati: Yup. > As this is the case he has to dismiss everything that is counter to this > position and in doing so distorts everything that the MoQ is about. Mati: I don't think he has just "dismissed", rather argue what are the valid premises to consider and builds his case from there. I know that suggesting the only distortion has been SOM which the tennents it requires us to accept premises that don't seem to stand on their own, but hey that is what the argument is all about. Again restating my message from 2005, lets decide on the rules by which will interpret MOQ and specifically the intellect level, and then put everything on the table. Let the best argument based on the agreed rules/tennents carry the day. Otherwise unnecessary name calling, backbiting and otherwise bullying will have to do it. Heck my money is on Bo. :-) Horse: >He has > to do this because if there is a single instance of an intellectual pattern > that is not S/O derived then his entire thesis is in tatters. This is > apparently why mathematics is at the Social level, similarly computer > languages and even logic. The eastern intellectual systems are treated > similarly. Mati: Again this is were framing the argument is so important. Pirsig biggest contribution for me was framing the argument. Pirsig walks us through a compelling historical and philosophical journey weaves our understanding of what is reality to a new level. From my humble perspective Bo uses much of the same framed arguments to forward his own idea which strikingly follows much of what Pirsig. Seem reasonable to me. When we are talking out intellect as the forth level are we talking about mathematics? I would suggest not. But in fairness we need an explanation as to why. What about the "eastern intellectual" what do they bring to the table? Heck this could be one of my longest posts if I were to tackle it, but I won't go there at this point. But I wish someone would think about how to frame the argument for intellect. Horse: > Bo has offered no philosophical basis for his interpretation and as such his > interpretation is no more than opinion. Mati: Isn't all interpretation based on opinion, based on what we believe are truths? Then again I would suggest that we are all guilty. Horse: >He consistently resorts to abusive > language when challenged on his position or refuses to engage, continuing to > disregard genuine disparities in his quest to show that his is the one true > interpretation of Pirsigs work. To my mind this is intellectually dishonest. Mati: One of my favorite movies is Grumpy Old Men. When he tends to be "grumpy" I think of the movie. Putz. I tend to be more forgiving of his transgressions, then again I am in his camp. I think Bo has done a remarkable job of sticking to what he believes, adding a sense of humor, and balancing a sense of importance to his message. Not bad for a Norwegian if I do say so myself. (I was raised in a community of Norwegians, so I feel qualified to make the statement. :-) ) To those who believe they are Pirsig loyalists, Bo certainly seems like a heretic. Then again there are many in the formal philosophy departments around the world that think Pirsig is a heretic to the traditional philosophic steeped in SOM. Intellectually dishonest?.... sorry I honestly don't see it that way. As a final note I want to thank Khoo Hock Aun for his post and others as well. I apologize for the next several weeks I have a lot things happening and won't be able to post. But here is a thought about Focus Forum. The fact is the next MOQ conference isn't happening anytime soon (or maybe I wasn't invited :-) ), and no other University has embraced MOQ that I know of. Then perhaps maybe you Horse could construct a Forum for better defining or addressing the Intellect Level question, to frame the discussion and argument for an end resolve. Perhaps an on-line conference of sorts. I don't know I am just talking from the top of my head. Again it is good to talk to you, time for a cold one. Mati 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/
