-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [MD] DMB and Me Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:41:36 +0100 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Bodvar to Andre: Mail problems or not, I have to force you to the task again. Andre: Hi Bodvar. Must say that Horse made me a wonderful suggested download and, thank you Marsha and Graig...Mozilla it has become. It is great Bodvar: You are not at a loss, you are in a bend: First agreeing with me, then changing to DM and now unable to admit your fault without "loosing face" Andre: I have explained this to you before. Learning to understand your perspective is not the same as agreeing with it. Just because your own interpretation of your perspective is not the same as mine leads you to say that I am 'in a bend'. I am not losing face over this as I have no face to lose. Bodvar: I argue from MOQ's DQ/SQ premises while you try to argue from the impossible Quality/MOQ premises. Andre: Yes, you argue from the 'conventional' static point of view. I agree totally with what you said to Marsha. Bodvar: No wonder you end up in bends, but - again - praise to you for not lending ear to DMB's mind-boggling "explanations", you seem to prefer plains-talk. Andre: Well, I am not in 'bends' and I learn much from dmb but am listening to Pirsig. Pirsig uses the two perspectives throughout LILA (without announcement). But to make sense of certain passages it is useful to be mindful of this. And, yes, I do prefer plains talk. Pirsig uses it, why not us. I have already suggested that I do not carry much philosophical 'garbage'.I had one Term of philosophy and four years sociology within the context of social work. Loads of plains talk there, though I had to keep on reminding many. Bodvar: You are not at a loss, you are in a bend: First agreeing with me, then changing to DM and now unable to admit your fault without "loosing face" Andre: I have explained this to you before. Learning to understand your perspective is not the same as agreeing with it. Just because your own interpretation of your perspective is not the same as mine leads you to say that I am 'in a bend'. I am not losing face over this as I have no face to lose. Bodvar: I argue from MOQ's DQ/SQ premises while you try to argue from the impossible Quality/MOQ premises. Andre: Yes, you argue from the 'conventional' static,You are not at a loss, you are in a bend: First agreeing with me, then changing to DM and now unable to admit your fault without "loosing face" Andre: I have explained this to you before. Learning to understand your perspective is not the same as agreeing with it. Just because your own interpretation of your perspective is not the same as mine leads you to say that I am 'in a bend'. I am not losing face over this as I have no face to lose. Bodvar: I argue from MOQ's DQ/SQ premises while you try to argue from the impossible Quality/MOQ premises. Andre: Yes, you argue from the 'conventional' static premises. I agree totally with what you said to Marsha about this perspective. Bodvar: No wonder you end up in bends, but - again - praise to you for not lending ear to DMB's mind-boggling "explanations", you seem to prefer plains-talk. Andre: Well, I am not in 'bends' and I learn much from dmb but am listening to Pirsig. Pirsig uses the two perspectives throughout LILA (without announcement). But to make sense of certain passages it is useful to be mindful of this. And, yes, I do prefer plains talk. Pirsig uses it, why not us. I have already suggested that I do not carry much philosophical 'garbage'.I had one Term of philosophy and four years sociology within the context of social work. Loads of plains talk there, though I had to keep on reminding many of my colleagues. Bodvar: Not much substance in this criticism. Pirsig went from radical SOLism in ZAMM (where he saw SOM = intellect) to LILA that contains plenty SOL (see Mary's post) but enough anti for the philosophologists. Then "Lila's Child" as an all time low, and finally the Paul Turner letter where he reverses the process, but too vaguely. Andre: I can't do much about this Bodvar. I do not think that Mr Pirsig is contradicting himself when you look at how he employs the two perspectives. I do not want to dismiss your frustrations with him but suggest that this may shed some light on the matter. But then again...you don't like the word 'mysticism'...despite what you say it is not a SOM word. Bodvar: The MoQ is in a greater "league" but it creates the Quality Reality the same way.. Andre: The MoQ does not 'create' anything. The MoQ is a creation from... It is a static intellectual pattern of value describing the process' of which it is a part. 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/md/archives.html
