[Mark]
My point was that a description of Quality, or God, or whatever, is a
subjective description.
[Arlo]
Curious, as I don't recall your answer to a previous question, when you
say "Quality, God or whatever", what other terms would you find
synonymous, and do you feel the commonality of "undefinedness" is what
makes all these terms interchangeable?
I'd say that descriptions are neither subjective nor objective, since
that's just repeating the mistake of SOM, but that descriptions are
stable patterns of value (in our traditions, mostly social or
intellectual) that emanate from experience (direct and filtered). I will
agree there are innumerable descriptions out there, and demanding one be
"true" is also a mistake of SOM.
[Mark]
Once one promotes his diction into dogma, we are left with a religion.
[Arlo]
I think this is your own monkey, Mark. No one is suggesting Pirsig's
ideas are "dogma", but that is hardly the same thing as being clear and
precise about what he did say, and what he did not say. As DMB correctly
points out, before one can discern where one agrees or disagrees with
Pirsig (or any other person), one has to know what they say. This is a
move towards clarity, not "dogma".
[Mark]
Quality does not exist, per say, or that would make it a thing.
[Arlo]
What do you mean by "per say"?
[Mark]
Quality is that which lies between. It creates subject and object, or
the vast differences in qualities. But you can never point to it, all
you can point to is the results.
[Arlo]
You seem to suggest that 'existence' is a feature of subjects and
objects, but not what gives rise to them? I agree with your statement
here, though, I'm just not sure how this demonstrates that Quality does
not exist (or does not exist 'per say'). My understanding of Pirsig is
that he suggested that Quality is ALL that exists, and that subjects and
objects do not exist 'independently' of Quality.
[Mark]
I have yet to see somebody post the eight basic tenants that provide the
basis for MoQ.
[Arlo]
Are you suggesting there are, or there are not, "basic tenants" for MOQ?
[Mark]
Instead, all I hear are clever parsing of words, from a club who claims
to be the true interpreters of Pirsig.
[Arlo]
There are a few here who are, or have been, in direct communication with
Pirsig, and I trust they are relating Pirsig's intentionality
accurately. Based on his own comments, I'd say this the case.
[Mark]
Do you consider yourself to have a full understanding of MoQ so that you
can now elevate yourself to the position of teacher?
[Arlo]
I strive to know enough so that I know when I agree and when I disagree
with someone.
[Mark]
You have not proven that you understand MoQ at all. Prove me wrong with
a couple of paragraphs that are your synopsis of MoQ. Get off this
righteous religious bandwagon.
[Arlo]
Again, this is your monkey, Mark, not mine. If you find my posts of
little value, you are free to ignore them, it matters nothing to me.
It is funny, though, as the comment I made that produced such ire was
simply "You are free to disagree with Pirsig's MOQ, and articulate your
differences, and when the day comes that you offer something better, I'm
sure people will be interested in Mark's metaphysics." You've turned an
anti-dogmatic statement into a "religious bandwagon", and I think this
is the source of your incoherence.
Indeed, if anything, by arguing that we simply talk about Pirsig's ideas
and your ideas and my ideas, I've completely stripped any 'dogma' out of
the equation. Ironically, by demanding that we argue over who speaks for
The MOQ, or what The MOQ says, you turn the MOQ into a deity of sorts.
Its funny. But I'm sure you completely miss the irony.
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
