[John]
My caveat is that "only motivation" is too narrow. I think Horse's
explanation of "ego" is astute.
[Arlo]
I agree, and I didn't mean to dismiss it, or skip over it.
[John]
The teaching that all of intellectual patterning is dependent upon a
subject helps keep the little monster at the center of being.
[Arlo]
I think this is also a pretty astute observation.
[John]
Good example, and one I take issue with as well. But as I've pointed
out, Pirsig's own postulation of this division is clearly presented
as provisional - "his best guess" and thus open to further discussion
as we've been doing.
[Arlo]
Right. I simply meant that I have no problem saying "Pirsig said X, I
say Y, Y is beter than X and here is why". Is this rocket science to some?
[John]
Whereas the SOL rips the soul outta the MoQ completely - crowning
intellect alone as the apex of evolutionary development.
[Arlo]
Right. And I think this is why Pirsig's remarked it undermines the MOQ.
In any event, the SOL is about as irrelevant a position to me as one
could be, but I have no problem with Bo advancing it in opposition to
what Pirsig said. If he can support the claim his MOQ is better than
Pirsig's MOQ, all power to him. But, again, I think its as Ron said,
stripped of it "interpretative claim", the SOL is dead in the water.
Apart from the aforementioned reasons, it offers nothing whatsoever.
Pirsig's MOQ is far more explanatory and revolutionary.
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
