On Apr 10, 2011, at 2:52 PM, X Acto wrote: > > > Hello Dan, Marsha> >> >> On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:10 AM, X Acto wrote: >> >>> Dan: >>> There are not many MOQs. There is one, as far as I am concerned. Any >>> other theory should be called by another name, otherwise it leads to >>> confusion. >>> >>> Ron: >>> Thats a real absolute authoritative view, Marsha's not going to like that >>> too >>> much. >> >> >> Marsha: >> The MoQ as we discuss it is an Intellectual Static Pattern of Value, and is >> subject to >> an individual's static history and the dynamics of the experience. RMP >> knows >> that >> there cannot be an absolute MoQ. In this quote, he acknowledges the MoQ's >> vulnerability. I may agree with Dan on many issues, but that he has an >> absolute >> understanding of the Quality of the MoQ, I have to say: No. No. No. - > > Dan: > Hi Ron and Marsha > > Of course I don't have an absolute understanding of the MOQ or of > anything for that matter. I think you're both putting words in my > mouth. I said there is only one MOQ, not many. That doesn't translate > into an absolute MOQ, however. It is a both a static and Dynamic > document. > > And Robert Pirsig has talked! He wrote a book about the MOQ. He has > written much subsequent work about it as well. He has shown where > certain interpretations work while others do not. He has suggested > that if someone wants to diverge from the MOQ with their own theories, > that he doesn't have a problem with that as long as they name it > something else. > > If we are all to start throwing our own ideas out there without regard > to the framework of the MOQ, then what are we doing here? Isn't this a > forum to discuss THE MOQ? I thought it was. That's what the guidelines > say. > > Marsha: > On the other >> hand, I think there is great value in trying to deepen ones understanding, >> and >> if one >> can kill those intellectual patterns even for a few minutes, than great good >> has been >> accomplished. >> >> “There is the Quality of Zen and there is the Quality of the MOQ and they >> are >> not the same thing anymore because the MOQ is an intellectual static pattern >> and >> already it’s been polluted plenty to get into that pattern. And all of a >> sudden >> you’re taking sides and things... You’re picking and choosing and in Zen >> you’re >> not supposed to do that! I’ll give you that koan: ‘the way is not difficult >> but >> it avoids picking and choosing.’ That’s a famous koan: the quality that is >> Quality is arrived at not by picking and choosing.” >> >> >> http://robertpirsig.org/AHP.htm > > Dan: > > Which is what freedom is all about! > > Ron: > But Zen is not Moq, RMP just explained the difference > above between the two ideas. But this difference is bridged when we look at > connecting > the two of them. > The koan: The quality that is Quality is not entirely intellectual, would > explain the connection > between the two ideas better and link to what he says about experience being > reality and > > reality being composed of value, every last bit. It would support inorganic > picking and choosing > organic picking and choosing and yet affirm what the Zen practicioners say, > that > the way > avoids picking and choosing because it avoids picking and choosing > intellectually alone. > It links to the idea of care in craftsmanship and to the concept of the code > of > art with functionality > because it appeals to a larger array of value than just intellectual. > Freedom from choice is just an intellectual trap if it does not relate to > meaningfulness in experience.
Hello Ron, I find no reference to craftsmanship or the code of art in the entire paper. But I suppose you will interpret as you will. Marsha ___ 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
