Andre, Please ignore this post, I hit the send button by mistake. I am still working on my reply.
Marsha On Apr 30, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > > Andre: >> Direct experience formalizes nothing Marsha. > > I haven't the slightest idea what you're getting at with this sentence. > > Andre: > This shows your learning and your non-commitment to anything...which is > fine...but do not use it to evade and dodge. When you commit yourself to a > dialogue...commit your self. In dialogue all is static Marsha, do not hide > behind, and fade within the 'unpatterned' (your favourite expression to > escape or evade the issues in question). > > Marsha: > > The MoQ is both 1.) a intellectual pattern explained by ZMM and LILA, and 2. > a designation for Reality = Quality. > > Andre: > So long as you are aware that it is a 'designation' and not reality itself as > Bodvar would have it. > > Marsha: > Yes, the subject/object thinking is dualistic, and SOM is a formalized > representation of subject/object thinking. > > Andre: > So what does this have to do with the MOQ?.S/O thinking is one way of > abstracting (intellectually) what we translate into epistemology and > ontology. Pirsig has argued that the premises upon which the SOM epistemology > and ontology are built is false. SOM does not accept direct , pure > experience. It only accepts postulated theoretical hypotheses...proven or > disproven in the process. It rejects Quality. > > Marsha: > I don't think you understand Bo's point-of-view enough to say that it is a > detriment to the MoQ. > > Andre: > I think I do understand Bodvar's point of view and I am not the only one on > this discuss who suggests that his pov is a detriment to the MOQ. Even Mr. > Pirsig has said so!!!( Annotn. 132/133) > > Marsha: > What you think I've learned is not very important to me. > > Andre: > Sounds like it isn't very important to you either. > > Marsha: > 'The farther you go away from DQ the more divisions you'll encounter'. > Here, I agree with you. > > Andre: > (I'll keep on being an arsehole): do you understand and experience it as such > though??!!and doesn't that tell you anything? > > Marsha: > Yes, I agree that the MoQ is fine. But it is our confusion that makes > it messy. > > Andre: > Don't generalise...it is your confusion. Bodvar has a way of doing this and > it is not constructive. Rather it is destructive which is not good teaching. > Every time a newby comes on this discuss he pounces with the SOM intellectual > level which he has fucked up. This is confusing. The MOQ intellectual level > is fine. > > Marsha: > The only thing you have going in this post is swearing and sarcasm. > > Andre: > This response reminds me of what Phaedrus went through in ZMM when confronted > with the University's Great Books Program and the relevance of the classics > to twentieth century society. Phaedrus played no games, he didn't just accept > the idea...he 'passionately and fanatically knew it'. > > Platt and Bodvar are playing games...they are playing their own agenda's. > Platt's is political, Bodvar's is social...reputation...(commitment of one > point of view upon which he has staked his entire life's work and > reputation). And it is my conviction that the MOQ is very relevant to the > twenty-first century. I am not playing any games here, I do not simply accept > this idea on belief... I passionately know it... and (to quote Phaedrus in > ZMM):'..he assailed them with every kind of invective he could think of' and > I do this because they are presenting a distorted view of the MOQ and Mr. > Pirsig's accomplishments...and I care about the MOQ and about Mr. Pirsig's > accomplishments. > > Marsha: > I think you've lost heart, which is nobody's fault but your own little > ego. Keep up with the swearing, it reflects you little self very well. > > Andre: > This has nothing to do with 'ego' Marsha. Again, I'd hoped you'd have learned > something. Alas dmb was right! I am concerned about my little self. This is a > very different concept from 'ego' as you should be well aware...small > self-big self...? But I have my doubts....you seem to be confused. > > These two personalities (Platt and Bodvar) are distorting the > relationship...they have no idea about DQ/SQ. (talking about ego's!) > > I have not lost heart...I care vehemently....... but alas! You are stuck in > SOM and do not understand the basics of the MOQ. You may do so theoretically, > i.e pay lip service to it, but you do not recognize it as such within your > own experience. > > But I cannot tell you what you experience (you don't either) and I will not > tell you how to conceptualize it...you have your own analogues. The MOQ is > only a guide. But by all means Marsha, go your own way...but > then................................................................. all the > way. > > > > > 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 ___ 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
