That's SIMian logic for you Dave - in severe danger of disappearing up
it's own ineptitude.
Bo's version of the MoQ is so incredibly mangled that I don't believe
that anyone who adheres to it has the faintest chance of making sense of
what Pirsig has said in his writings. And given the general level of
nonsense created in support of Bo's version this appears to be the case.
The passage you quote seems to be very clear in what it says but
explaining this to Bo is pointless because he has no interest in seeing
anything in any way other than in terms of his SIMian interpretation. A
consequence of this is that what you say will be similarly distorted
because it doesn't conform to Bo's interpretation and therefore ends up
mangled in the same way as almost everything that Pirsig has said.
Could I interest you in a nice hard wall against which you can bang your
head - it feels so much better when you stop!
Horse
On 26/07/2010 19:30, david buchanan wrote:
Bo asked:... And moreover who says that SQ are "static concepts"? except DMB.
dmb says:
MOQers, this is a great example of why it is completely pointless to discuss
anything with Bo. He asked the question just a few days after I showed BO that
James and Pirsig both say what static concepts are. Further, it is a passage
from Lila that I have quoted and explained many, many times.
"...he [James] meant that subjects and objects are not the starting points of
experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are CONCEPTS derived from something
more fundamental which he described as 'the immediate flux of life' ... James had
condensed this description to a single sentence: 'There must always be a discrepancy
between CONCEPTS and reality, because the former are STATIC and discontinuous while the
latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had
used for the basic subdivision of the MOQ. ...Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also
the primary empirical experience. The MOQ says pure experience is value. ...Value is at
the very front of the empirical procession."
Further, Bo keeps misinterpreting the relationship between DQ and sq AS IT IS
EXPLAINED IN THIS PASSAGE. As any literate person should be able to see, Pirsig
and James are both saying that subject and objects are BOTH static concepts.
That is to say neither are dynamic. Bo thinks that I think DQ is equal to an
objective reality and sq is equal to subjective mind. Nope. That not what James
or Pirsig or I am saying. Subject and objects are both static concepts. DQ can
NOT be equated to either of them because they are BOTH derived from DQ.
Does anyone, other than the usual suspects, have any problem grasping this?
It's just so clear and simple to me that I'm a bit stunned that anyone could
fail to see it, let alone fail year after year after year. Is there something
confusing about that passage?
Calling all sane people, calling all sane people. I need a reality check.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
