Platt to Horse: The only real issue we seem to have is about the nature of intellect and its place in the MOQ evolutionary structure. Going back to the container analogy, the following quote from Pirsig supplies evidence that the MOQ stands above its static intellectual level:
"What the MOQ would do is take this separate category, Quality, and show how it contains within itself both subjects and objects." (Lila, 5) Andre: (Hope I am not beating you to anything Horse) this is the misunderstanding Platt shares with Bodvar, time and again and Platt proves it here again: The MOQ does NOT stand above its static level. The code of art stands above the intellectual level. The 'MO' of the MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value. This fallacy of equating the MOQ with Quality itself is very pernicious it seems. And I'll include two questions to Bodvar here (whilst we are in the same thread): Bodvar, you still have not produced evidence for your claim that the 'essence' of the MOQ is to transcend SOM. To suggest that this claim is 'obvious' is begging the question whilst not answering it. 'Obvious' is a term used by many common sensically minded populist groups and individuals.I thought the discuss was 'above' that. Secondly, can you explain to me what an 'objective attitude' is (as intellect's real value). I may be wrong but I thought that the MOQ had 'exposed' the basis and ligitimacy of this attitude to be a fallacy. 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
