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).
This show nothing of the kind about my commitment. It show I
did not understand what you were replying. In the original statement
I did not mention DQ, so your response didn't make sense. T
> 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.
I have no reason to rely on your interpretation of Bo.
> 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:
It was my response to your "subject here and motorcycle there and never
twain shall meet". I thought it matched your ambivalence well.
>
> 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)
RMP also wrote:
``Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and
true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of
philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking
something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and
everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be broken down
into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious
but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct.
(ZMM, Chapter 20)
And he wrote:
"The question of "How do you justify the statement that Quality
equals reality?" was the best one. The correct answer from a
MOQ perspective is, "by the harmony it produces", but this
answer is only for people who already understand the MOQ.
Those who don't can't see the harmony and for them this
answer is meaningless."
(Pirsig, 2000)
> Marsha:
> What you think I've learned is not very important to me.
>
> Andre:
> Sounds like it isn't very important to you either.
'Sounds like to you' is also that I do not give a lot
of attention.
> 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?
It makes reading and trying to understand your posts difficult.
> 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. T
> he MOQ intellectual level is fine.
I cannot imagine why your rantings should matter to me. They don't. I
don't think you are a spokesman for anybody but yourself. That is all I am,
an individual batting around some ideas. The MoQ is important to me,
but not necessarily your interpretation. I like my interpretation, but it
could
change if I thought it appropriate.
> 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'.
Marsha:
Whatever!
> Andre:
> 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:
The known is an ever-changing, interrelated, impermanent, relative
static pattern of value. I see no reason to be too concerned with something
that will, even for you, be changing and is impermanent.
> Marsha:
> I think you've lost heart, which is nobody's fault but your own little
> ego. Keep up with the swearing, it reflects your 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.
Marsha:
To you, I may seem confused. I know of no reason why that should
concern me.
>
> These two personalities (Platt and Bodvar) are distorting the
> relationship...they have no idea about DQ/SQ. (talking about ego's!)
Why don't you work on yourself...
> 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.
Your opinion is your opinion, and has nothing to do with me.
> 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.
Thank you for your suggestion.
Marsha
___
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
