Bodvar to Platt: That is, it's good in the sense of wanting to be forthcoming to Horse, but to give the "devil the little finger ..."
Andre: Nothing forthcoming to Horse Bodvar. Platt clearly expresses his doubts about your interpretation of the intellectual level PLUS the results of his own experience, expressed in the observation: 'where does the idea of beauty fit?'. Are we seeing cracks in the SOL armour...by one of its staunchest defenders (without completely understanding it)??!!! And you continue Bodvar: you know;-) The intellectual level is either the S/O distinction (SOM ninus its metaphysical rank) or we are back in the quagmire. And here we have the most atrocious defence of the thing that cannot be defended. If this, and listen all you 'liberals', is not defending dogma I do not know what is. Bodvar, you are fairly and squarely caught with your pants down! It is either your interpretation or a quagmire? You do not understand the MOQ my friend. This is the only conclusion I can draw. And then to think and realize that Mr. Pirsig worked so hard and suffered so much to bring us the obvious which had been eluded for such a long time...and then to still find people to stuff it all up. Bodvar: Regarding "the mystical understandings" these are not of the static realm but encounters with - or efforts at at reaching the dynamic, but that's a risky biz,... Andre: Here you do it again (jeez!) Platt is asking about 'understandings', you know insights. These are static patterns of value which, as you now clearly indicate, confuse your interpretation of the intellectual level, because your interpretation does not allow for them. You keep on confusing DQ/SQ! Bodvar continues: no one can stay there permanently. The Indian fakirs try and it's impressive, but it will kill them. Andre: Needles to say Bodvar, you have killed DQ in defence of your static representation of the intellectual level. This is low quality indeed. Bodvar: Ref:Arlo's about the Reality=Quality issue. I commented it but that's the signal to clam shut. Andre: I think it would be a good idea to pay a little more attention and respect to what Arlo says Bodvar. Arlo is a good person and his post are intelligent and stimulating. I am afraid to observe that ever since Mary brought the 'fundamentalist' and the 'liberalist' distinction into play things have developed into an us-versus-them battle. This is very low quality. And what was the reasoning? The 'fundamentalists', in the process of still developing sound, high quality understandings of Mr. Pirsig's writings prefer to stay as close as is possible to these writings in an effort not to distort their meanings nor their intentions and thereby developing high quality experiential patterns for themselves. That is, static representations of dynamic experiences. The 'liberals'are opposed to this. They follow and 'Hurray' the free thinking Bodvar who suggests that their experiences are SOM... and everyone agrees and everyone is happy with the free thinker! But you do not think and experience for yourself!!! As Pirsig ( yeah, sorry to bring him up again)argued, this dualistic way of approaching the motorcycle sounds right (because we are indoctrinated by it and therefore so used to it) but it is an artificial interpretation. It's never been reality itself. Mr. Pirsig opens the experiential abstractions ( inorganic, organic, social and intellectual) and Bodvar closes them with his intellectual definition (SOM). Now, who's the real MoQ'er? 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
