[Platt]
He said Platt's conclusion -- "The MOQ is the best S/O answer I've
found yet." -- undermines the MOQ, meaning by emphasizing the
necessary use of S/O language to convey the MOQ its "essence" may be
compromised, reducing its value.
[Arlo]
You SOL-ists are too funny. He said nothing about the MOQ's essence
being compromised, or anything about "the necessary use of S/O
language to convey the MOQ". If that is what he MEANT, then that is
what he would have SAID. He did not.
Platt:
So, I fully agree with Bo's insight that the SOM and the intellectual
level are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to avoid
losing it and sinking back to "anything goes" irrationalism or a
"because God says so" mentality, we need to recognize its
vulnerability to attacks from academic philosophers, social
do-gooders, spiritual evangelists, and its own internal paradoxes. To
that end, the MOQ is the best S/O answer I've found yet.
Pirsig:
I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is
obviously not Platt's intention. It is like saying that science is
really a form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has
the effect dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ
is in opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a
part of that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have
read that the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel,
James, Peirce, Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even though these
people are not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of
comparison is what I have meant by the term, "philosophology." It is
done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but
only to classify it so that they don't have to see it as anything
new. God knows the MOQ has never had two better friends than Bo and
Platt, so this is no criticism of their otherwise brilliant thinking.
It's just that I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if
you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it opposes.
The "conclusion" he is speaking about is clearly "that the SOM and
the intellectual level are one and the same". Nowhere in his reply do
I see anything about "necessary use of S/O language to convey the
MOQ" or anything about the MOQ's "essence" being compromised.
I agree with Pirsig on this, following the path of Bo and Platt
lowers the quality of the MOQ. Pirsig got that one right.
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
