Hi Arlo, Yes, perhaps this discussion has run its course. I have presented a number of concepts herein that are now available in the archives. I will close by responding to your few paragraphs below.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:38 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark] > So, given all of that, do you not think that the reader has some obligation? > > [Arlo] > Dialogue is an ongoing process of negotiated meaning, sure. But to say your > "story cannot be subjected to rules of truth", well, where does that leave the > people who try to decipher your words? [Mark] There is a degree of incongruence in your presentation of "negotiated meaning" and search for "truth". The two are opposing. In ZMM there was a battle between dialectic and rhetoric. Phaedrus took the latter position. This is towards the end of my worn paperback. The point was that Truth is a fall out of Quality. This is what I mean by trying to subject the rhetoric presented in the forum to rules of truth. Each person is a free thinking individual. I have no dictates which govern Quality, since that would be placing Truth above Quality. Deciphering is done through dialogue such as we have been having. It has been my attempt to question your beliefs of Quality in a pseudo-Socratic form, along with presenting other possibilities. What you do with it is none of my business. > > [Mark] > It would appear that you are placing the levels beneath the power of words. > > [Arlo] > What? You really don't read what I write. I am beginning to think this is just > another inane game. "Beneath the power of words"? I don't even know what such > a > thing would mean. [Mark] Many people consider Pirsig's writings to be inane, so I am in good company. Many see the "brujo" as inane. You present words with undue significance. They are useful for the Social level. That is all I am trying to say. > > "Language" is a very broad term that describes how patterns are built on the > social and intellectual levels. But these forms of semiosis are different. [Mark] OK, I will think about this. > > [Mark] > Me thinks that you do not understand MoQ. > > [Arlo] > Methinks you don't. Besides some pretty untenable "reasoning", you lapse in > and > out between Bo's SOL, subjectivism, objectivism, you say man is nothing but a > biological pattern, and below you state the levels have always existed, the > intellectual level existed before the first subatomic particle formed. [Mark] There is a tendency to label and compartmentalize into boxes of thought in this forum. My mind is free from such things, but you can place what I say into any preconceived notion of things. You may find many cracks in these preconceptions as they relate to MoQ. I do not share the same distaste for the biological level as you do. In fact, I find it quite glorious to be here in this form. I do not use the words "nothing but". You are correct about my notion of Quality existing before the first subatomic particle. It did not appear as a projection of man as Ham would have us believe. > > I have no idea what "MOQ" you are talking about, even if I try to think of it > as alternative to Pirsig's ideas it is so incoherent I can't even begin to > figure it out. Then you accuse me, in typical fashion, of in effect just being > to dumb to grasp your brilliance. [Mark] In my opinion, my ideas are completely consistent with Pirsig's. I may have a temporal jump on you in that I have been considering these things for close to 40 years. I think you are quite bright. I simply try to jog your reasoning. Thanks for indulging me. Cheers, Mark > > > 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
