Hi Platt
Your Pirsig quote comes from that part of Lila's Child where you are
supporting Bo's (now) SOL idea and Pirsig disagrees with you (and as a
consequence Bo) about the MoQ being a SOM document based on SOM reasoning:
From Lila's Child
Platt:
To fill the hole may require a new level above SOM. I’m not sure about
this. After all,
the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning. [132]
Pirsig [132]:
It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures
such
as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known. SOM
reasoning is not
subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ is not subordinate
to the SOM
structures it employs. Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is
not an object or a
subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and
not by reasoning
of any kind. Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is
as useful as
saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn’t
tell us
anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn’t tell
us anything
about the essence of the MOQ.
Pirsig's notes 129, 131 and 133 also specifically disagree with Bo's
idea about SOM as the Intellectual level - for which you show agreement.
Why is it that when Pirsig states quite categorically that both you and
Bo are wrong about SOL - even going so far as to say that your
conclusions undermine the MoQ - you ignore everything he says.
Horse
On 17/04/2010 16:33, [email protected] wrote:
Pirsig:
"Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a
subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and
NOT BE REASONING OF ANY KIND.(LC, Note 132 - emphasis added)
On 17 Apr 2010 at 11:05, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
[John]
That's the problem with Quality in an academic matrix, and it's not a problem
with Quality, it's a problem with the academic matrix.
[Arlo]
I think you are conflating Quality with the MOQ. Certainly, one cannot (nor
should try) to constrain "Quality in an academic matrix".
I think the post I just wrote in the "Philolosophology" thread addresses this,
as you seem to be using the MOQ as a placeholder for the Quality-in-Living view
as described in ZMM. No one, certainly not me, would say that Quality is
something the academics "can smack their lips on like some bon-bon" (or
something like that). But the MOQ IS an intellectual pattern (again, despite
Bo's mired denial), and as such is about "expanding rationality", which is an
intellectual endeavor, one that is best served by the "academic" discourse of
people like you, Ant, Granger, DMB, Matt, Steve and others.
ZMM is about planting your garden with care, gumption and Quality. The MOQ is
about an expanded rationality for reinterpreting experience, an intellectual
endeavor.
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
--
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/md/archives.html
