Bo: Good explanation why some appear fearful of your MOQ stance. Thanks.
Platt P.S. Prepared to be pelted with personal attacks and negative innuendos. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Arlo > > 25 July : > > [Bo] before > > Arlo has become a mean little Jr. of late and his "agony" over us > > strong interpreters i a little pathetic... > > [Arlo] > > Arlo's only "agony", I can assure you, is the embarrassment felt at > > watching your blind quest for "interpretative legitimacy" lead you all > > to new depths of dishonesty and distortion. > > Hold your fire. Pirsig's must be the strangest case in the Western > cultural history by 1) presenting a system that will abolish academical > philosophy (philosophology) by 2) postulating that it - with a welter > rational disciplines - is the last and topmost level in a system of levels > that violently resist being moved down inside the hierarchy. > > Now, the MOQ is no level, but its treatment of the topmost - intellectual > - level is at least as humiliating for intellect as intellect's own was for > the social level. This intellect vs. society struggle isn't over and > intellect's resistance to the MOQ will be no less protracted , Not by > violence, but by intellect's means, it will not allow itself to be reduced > from thinking itself to the static value of a thinking subject/objective > world. > > Intellect wants by all means to keep the MOQ an intellectual pattern as > such safely inside its domain and you - intellect's henchmen - have > already given us a show of its methods no less fierce than the social- > intellect struggle which is waged on society's home turf - violence. The > intellect vs MOQ will be with intellect's non-lethal weapons, but no less > effective. > > > This whole "strong interpreter" nonsense is just part and parcel of > > that. Once again, Bo, take your argument to its only valid ground, > > champion the cause that YOUR ideas are BETTER than Pirsig's. > > See, you want it all shifted to an inter-academic dispute, harmless for > intellect that happily sees countless "intellectual patterns" - i.e. ideas > - > pop up and compete, but there is just one MOQ and it is the one that > reduces intellect from its role in SOM - as mind - to SOM itself, so this > your trap we will not wander into. Thank you.. > > > So long as you remain trapped in your prison of interpretative > > legitimacy, however, you are all just proving how intellectually > > worthless the SOL truly is. > > Granted, the MOQ is intellectually worthless - just as worthless as > intellect looked to society in its time. It's outright dangerous and its > creator Phaedrus was treated accordingly by intellect's immune > apparatus. The recuperated Pirsig did no longer dare forward the > strong MOQ only the watered-down version where the intellectual level > had been reduced to - on one page SOM itself, to the next page where > it is back to SOM's mind. > > > And when that intellectual vacuum produces nothing but the dishonest > > talk-radio bombast that it has, you are damn straight that anyone with > > any shame whatsoever will become "mean". > > All this is expected from intellect's quarters, but as long as the MOQ > holds water I'm not very worried. Phaedrus blasted the trail and as you > - intellect's henchmen - are committed to argue from MOQ's premises > you are forced to land in the 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
