Dan and Group. 1 May.:
Mary had written: > My question centers around the nature of belief. How do we become > convinced? What is necessary to achieve the state of being convinced > of anything? It seems much easier to convince a child of anything > than to convince an adult ...snip. Dan: > Exactly. Even after Robert Pirsig writes two books postulating that > rather than subjects and objects being primary to intellect, patterns > of value are primary, many, many people will not believe. You seem > convinced otherwise. Bo is, too. So's Platt. Marsha? I don't know. I > think she's starting to see the cracks in Bo's SOL. I guess most > people are so entrenched in the primacy of subject/object thinking > that they'll resort to ridiculous lengths to maintain the illusion. It's both nonsensical and ridiculous (to say) that Pirsig's message is "... that rather than subjects and objects being primary to intellect, patterns of value are primary". With such premises no wonder you see me and the other "liberals" as bogey persons. The MOQ's thesis is that the Subject/Object distinction (SOM) is not existence's primary split, the Dynamic/Static Quality is!!!! I say "the MOQ's premises" because the latter-day RMP has many anti-moqish things. And the MOQ is all I care about. Regarding the intellectual level's definition half and half of LILA promotes the SOL (intellect = SOM) and the fundamentalist's intellect = something that no-one know what is. And Dan, can you see the SOL issue be kept going for ten years plus just because I am obstinate (DMB's last resort) and you also overlook the Paul Turner letter which was a great shift when the mind- or thinking - intellect was forcefully rejected by Pirsig and the SOL (almost) affirmed. Is slander and outright lies the last stand of the fundamentalists? > I am not being mean-spirited when I say Bo's SOM as Quality's > intellect doesn't make sense in the context of the MOQ. Nobody think you mean-spirited, and I don't mind stiff opposition as long as the MOQ supports me. Besides I don't think you are the keeper of THE MOQ context. > I am stating a fact. And if others choose to believe in nonsense I > can't stop them. No one can. You say you want an example of some > "thing" that's not a subject or object yet you're convinced subjects > and objects are all there is. Do you see the problem? Mary breaks no logical rules - if that is what you mean - by asking for non-S/O intellectual patterns. Strange that no ones are suggested ... except the said latter-day (Lila's Child) ones . Bodvar 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
