[Platt]
With typical narcissism, Arlo thinks my reference to "those" means him.
[Arlo]
Your post was addressed to me, forgive my assumption it was directed at me.
I have re-read it, however, and see my mistake.
[Platt previously]
We've been blessed by those who know the one right way to interpret
Pirsig. But now we're doubly blessed to have someone who knows the
one right way to think.
[Arlo]
In the light of not being "those" who "know the one right way to
interpret Pirsig", and instead being "someone who knows the one right
way to think", I've updated my reply.
Not so interestingly, it does not effect the content at all.
==============
[Arlo's revised reply to Platt]
Let's look at what I said, and see if I said "there is a right way to think".
[Arlo previously]
Pirsig's ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" (the foundation for which
we are all here, to be sure), and Bo's ideas = "A metaphysics of
Quality" that is a critical revision of Pirsig's ideas.
Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual
level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers
SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead of "THE
metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".
[Arlo]
I don't know which is worse, Platt, taking your post as stupidity or
taking it as distortion. Either way, kudos.
==============
[Arlo adds]
I'm going to address my questions to Marsha to you as well. See if
you can give a straightforward answer a shot.
Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo?
(1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of
Pirsig's metaphysics.
(2) Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the
intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality
that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead
of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".
Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what
value do you think it has?
Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of
Quality" as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's
ideas, but that it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's
metaphysics"?
Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into
some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes
no sense. Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be
wrong. In the same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas.
If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's
ideas, do you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for
authoritative legitimacy would disappear?
In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "A metaphysics
of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A
metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many
intellectual patterns"?
Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you
to say instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual
level to SOM"?
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
