Andre 19 June you wrote:
> And if this is not a contradiction in terms I do not know anything.By > presenting this quote you have DIS-proven your 'intellectual' S/O, > SOL. The knife CAN (and has) moved differently. The above pertains to my two ZAMM quotes (1) " ,,,the knife of subjectivity" and (2) "...an intellectual scalpel" that shows that Pirsig in that book regarded intellect = the S/O distinction, I see that the "an" allows for a possible different intellectual way of dividing existence, but THAT is not the intellectual LEVEL but the levels before intellect or the MOQ (that divides DQ/SQ) and of which intellect is a subset of ... and cannot fit inside!!! As long as you regard "intellect" the somish way as our central processing unit (CPU) the MOQ is and remains a SOM subset. > How is Phaedrus able to say this if there was NO OTHER WAY THAN THE > SOL?!!...and there is no way out of your SOL ( as you claim). What a > load of bullSHIT. This is DMB's alleged "devastating" argument against the SOL, namely that the the critique of SOM is intellectual, but Phaedrus' revolt was a Quality one. His early argument was that Quality is PRE- INTELLECTUAL and that it's INTELLECTUAL fall-out is SOM. This about DQ as Pre-conceptual is DMB's (by W. James) falsification that Pirsig - desperate for philosophical acceptance - sold out his radical idea (for thirty silver pieces.) > He is not talking about an 'Eastern' intellectual pattern. He is > talking about a dominating 'Western' intellectual pattern. The pattern > he was brought up on and in. And he didn't like it. No comprendo. Bodvar: > We see the origin her, Pirsig thinks that the DQ/SQ divide is done by > intellect's S/O-knife, hence the MOQ becomes something secondary to a > greater DQ. > Andre: > It is blatantly obvious that you do NOT know what or how Mr. Pirsig > thinks. Once again you are bulldozing your interpretation through the > MOQ which is, to say the least, very confusing (at first) very > annoying (at second) and incredibly boring once one gets a slight > glimpse of Mr. Pirsig's MOQ the way he would like it understood. ( and > for good measure; the way he would like it understood is by reading > and listening to all of his published stuff...and accepting it in the > process). If you do not accept it...well read what he had to say about > that in his letter to Doug Renselle...its in the archives. Seems you have the tine of your life "contradicting" me, not the least bored-sounding. > To QUESTION ! the idea that the MOQ is something 'secondary' to > DQ...to suggest that they might even be equal... to suggest that they > might even be equivalent...in other words the MOQ = DQ reveals your > complete misunderstanding. We already have a "metaphysics" that says that values are mere subjective, unreliable, whatever-you-like, namely SOM. Is this a "moq"? Must be if a QUALITY sits above the MOQ and that every possibly ordering is an ordering of. The intellectual level is a S/O- ordering of Quality, but it is absolutely inside the MOQ. > I really have had enough of this Bodvar. You are very confused and > should take a very, very long holiday. Many thanks, come July the 5th I start on a trip by car, but I may bring along my laptop and if I find a network ..... don't feel safe. ;-) 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
