Bodvar, Somehow, someway, you have twisted yet another idea to mean what you want it to mean.
Einstein and most of physics today refer to what you speak of strong and weak theories, as refering to strong and weak atomic attraction, strong and weak gravitational fields. Not strong and weak theories...why keep a weak theory if it's not as good as the strong one? You have yet to answer "what makes your interpretation strong?". Forget interpretation for the moment, what makes your idea better? -Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:47:57 PM Subject: Re: [MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM) Hi Arlo Horse has ordered me to engage in a conversation with you so I better comply. 12 July you wrote: > 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. It is NOT, but I guess that's taboo so I did not say it. > (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". Intellect = SOM originates in ZAMM and appears in about 50% of LILA, only in Lila's Child did some peculiar "rejection" occur, but after my year-long dispute with Paul Turner - and his letter to Pirsig in 2003 level - did Pirsig say that that level had bothered him too and then that it was no use to speak about Q-intellect before the Greeks AND GREEK IN A Q CONTEXT SPELLS SOM. Can't you see this Pirsigean "migration"? He starts a SOList in ZAMM, then 50/50% in LILA, then sort of a rejection in LC, but then a reversed flight back towards the strong interpretation. I must be allowed to defend my case. I'm accused of dishonesty but I really wonder who are the liars. > Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what > value do you think it has? If I am allowed - because the strong interpretation is no different MOQ, as little as the strong interpretation of Quantum Physics (QP) was a different QP. It truly was different from Newtonian (SOM) Physics, but proved to be the only QP. And I don't doubt for a minute that the strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM) will prove to be THE MOQ and your SOM-MOQ will be left in the dust. You know that Einstein was part of the weak interpretation of QP and he worked out an experiment to prove the strong faction wrong. So now as the leader of the "weaklings" it's up to you to work out the experiment that will prove the strong faction wrong. Sharpen your pencil! > 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"? Not sure if I get the point here. > Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into > some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? I very much see the MOQ as an expansion of reality, one that tucks the old SOM under its wings as a sub-set and thereby dissolves all SOM-induced paradoxes. Pirsig's "wrong" was that of returning from the wilderness - not going all the way - , but I understand his ordeal as a pioneer, he beat a track that we now can make a Sunday excursion along, I admire him boundlessly, but he was wounded in his lonely fight. > 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. I give you one example of Pirsig being wrong about his own ideas: Remember the passage about the "old books of the Bible lacking intellectual content" (according to P. in the Turner letter)? It's more than clear that they lack SOM - the objective detached attitude is totally missing - there are just prophets returning with messages from Javeh, no scientific questioning about how burning thorn-bushes didn't become ashes or could speak ...etc. OK, I wrote to Pirsig and pointed this out and he obviously felt cornered and started about an "old SOM" consisting in warning about crocodiles and "Javeh will reward you" promises. It was then I understood that Pirsig no longer "controlled" the MOQ, it has started on a purpose of its own. > 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? I don't understand this need for this distinction. Pirsig will be the towering lighthouse in MOQ's history. In a Quantum Physics comparison a combination of all the big names, yet in the same comparison the "weak vs strong" controversy occurred and only the latest technology could settle the score. I don't quite see what "experiment" can do that for the MOQ, but all attempts to apply the MOQ requires the intellect = SOM, ie. the SIM. > 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"? Because you are wrong about Pirsig unambiguously supporting the "SOM just one Intellectual pattern". For instance about SOM denying morals (creating social havoc) ...etc. It's more than plain that it's the entire intellectual level that denies morals, the "this pattern" was an escape when Pirsig discovered the conclusion, and this repeats itself: Pirsig said that the social level wasn't transcended in Homer's time which is a SOL affirmation, as was the Egyptians as no "intellectual culture". > 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"? Because to anyone honest enough to admit it THE MOQ is the strong MOQ or it is a dead MOQ. 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 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
