Mark, Ant, Marsha et al, As I say I respect others trying to better "document" the MoQ for both public and academic audiences - including attempts at alternative representations too like Tuukka's, but my point is this.
The endless loops back to definitions of intellect (for example) are not entirely pointless zero-progress loops Mark. That's a choice. The amazing aspect for me is that Pirsig is absolutely clear that what matters is "indefinable" - so I am genuinely baffled at those who choose to stick to their guns searching for the definitive. If we choose, we can see them as strange-loops, loops that are closed in one axis, but when we get there we see that we have shifted a level, and can then choose to move off in that plane, rather than take another tour of the ground floor. I think some people see the ground floor as some argument to the death, a proving ground, from which they cannot move on until they've "won" - the critical / disproving / destructive side of scientism. But there's more to life IMHO, there's even more to science actually, but that's another story. Trying to do something better - knowing what's better - which is I believe what Ant just said (and Marsha too - "do"). There is nothing else. Ian On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > Mark Smit stated May 4th 2012: > >> Hi Ian, >> Thanks for trying to move the discussion into more fertile grounds. >> We can go round and round with the parsing of definitions and usages, >> but we end up where we started without much advancement. In my >> opinion, the advancement should be directed towards making MoQ more >> understandable to the general public. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > So reading this Mark - on face value - you must think therefore that Tukkaa's > "SOQ project" is on a hiding to nothing but yet, from reading other posts you > have posted here recently, you also seem to like what the "little Finnish > guy" is doing for the analytical (aka the non-poetical/"miss the trees for > the wood") philosophers. I'm a bit confused, no doubt I'm in need of some... > ED-U-CA-TION here! > >> The idea is that this >> metaphysics will survive long after our lifetimes. > > Christ, it will be good if this planet just survives for a few decades after > our lifetimes... but first, "though there may be trouble ahead", let's drag > ourselves through the next paragraph.,, > >> It is way too >> early to have arrived at the best display, > > That sounds like an airshow rather than a metaphysics! > >> however discussion amongst >> disparate people is one advantage the internet offers that wasn't >> present in the previous propagation of a metaphysics. So long as our >> intent is somewhat selfless, it will happen. > > That's unlikely then, as very few people are really selfless - even the good > old Dalai Lama. At least, some of us, try our best. > >> My "thesis" is similar to yours [Ian]. > > Now that's a conundrum to conjure with. Is Mark's "thesis" the same as > Ian's? Ian strikes me as someone honestly trying to further his > understanding about the world and his place in it (even though he needs to > take a "wider" look at life) While Mark strikes me as... > >> As I see it, MoQ is a Western >> interpretation of a perennial philosophy. As such, it uses modern >> paradigms and allegories with which to create the fable. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Pirsig uses both old and new. This last sentence of Mark's sounds like that > guy who tried to sell me something I didn't want yesterday. (I'm glad it > wasn't my phone bill). > > >> Trying to >> impart the message of MoQ is like trying to tell the Titanic to start >> turning. > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Is it? Mark, this sounds like you've been using the wrong analogies. Try a > motorcycle analogy sometime... > >> However, it is not clear how far the iceberg is, or if there >> is any iceberg at all. > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Well, the way global warming is going Mark, there won't be any icebergs to be > worrying about. In the meantime, I'm only buying real estate 1000 feet above > sea level. > >> I am not a Doom type of person. > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Looks like we have a "half glass full" type of person here! Is there a heaven > when we die, Mark? > >> However, there appears to be a disconnect between the adoration of the >> intellect (as it is taught to us), > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Not on this planet and not for a long time. Thinkers aren't really welcome > here. They kinda rock the boat a little too much for the status quo. Just > thinking of So-crates and Jesus here. > > >> and the experiential mind. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > I'm lost here. What mind isn't experiential? George Bush juniors mind? > Humo(u)r me. > >> Most of >> our rationality comes from a place outside the intellect, something >> which John seems to appreciate. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Well that would make John a moron. Which he definitely isn't. > >> >> I too do not want to get into a debate on what the intellect is >> because this simply misdirects one as to what is being accomplished >> here. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > This sounds like bullshit. > >> There are more important areas in my opinion. One is: "What >> are we missing in modern day Western thought?" You seem to allude to >> this as well. Pirsig uses the analogy of the split from a more >> intimate view of existence (Sophists) to the more Western >> (Aristotelian) view of existence. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > "More intimate view of existence"? Sounds clever but it still sounds like > more bullshit. I think it's Plato that Pirsig/Phaedrus has THE real problem > with. Aristotle was just building on what his teacher "teached" him. > > >> Of course the Sophist[s] did not >> invent what they spoke of. Using Pirsig's tale, the rise of large >> schools of thought that were dominated by single individuals > > Ant McWatt comments: > > What "individuals" aren't single? > >> (Aristotle), resulted in the confining of thought in the same way as >> the Church did later on. One could perhaps say this is a tendency of >> man, that being to either lead or to follow. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > > > This sounds like more bullshit. > >> As I have stated in previous posts, it is very difficult to >> distinguish between the conceptual and the preconceptual. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > > > No it isn't. If go to my local jazz club, I can conceptualise the > instruments and the club very well. I just can't conceptualise some new > (pre-conceptual) riff even though I think it swings. This difference is > crystal clear to me. > >> It would >> appear that the line is drawn by the social level. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Like asking you about the cool riffs at my jazz club? I don't think so, > buddy. That would be more uncool than asking Ian. I know at least he would > try to give me an honest answer. > >> That is, once we >> share something it becomes "conceptual". This makes sense to me since >> in order to share something we must first objectivize it. If this is >> a good working line of demarcation, then we can investigate the >> preconceptual. This is a study into the "esoteric" as I like to call >> it, but I suppose it could also be termed the "subjective". > > Ant McWatt comments: > > So, if we follow your line of "reasoning" here we have the "Objective" > becoming "subjective". In other words, to summarise, we have more internet > space devoted to bullshit. More seconds of my life wasted. > >> Of course >> all these terms have their difficulties. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > You know, for me Mark, it started in the 1980s with Art and the conceptual > bullshit of Emin, Hirst etc to think, God, despite these imposters, there > must be good quality Art out there - somewhere - from this era. Duchamp made > a good point in 1920. The same joke repeated a few hundred times wears a bit > thin. (Over the head time?) > >> The point being that we can >> only investigate the preconceptual through a personal level. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Sounds like preconceptual bullshit here though on quite a personal level. > >> Having said that, this forum allows us to learn how others have done it, > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Well, what "others" have done it? Or done what? Ham? Platt? Tukkaa? Bo? > I've read my "How to make friends and influence people" so I'm not saying any > more. > >> and >> what they have come up with in terms of better explaining MoQ, to >> those dissatisfied with the "March of Progress" of Western thinking. >> >> Of course we are not the first or only ones doing this. In fact one >> can learn a lot about this preconceptual investigation from reading >> Rudolf Steiner. However, the appeal of the MoQ method was on full >> display in the success of ZAMM. Believe me, many many people >> understood what Quality was without any confusion through the >> implementation of Western Philosophical Terms. Therefore, we know >> that the audience is there and waiting. While Pirsig says that Lila >> is the more important work, he is only saying this in terms of the >> body explanation. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > "Body explanation"? A phrase that sounds plausible on first reading... then > you look a little closer and think, that sounds like more bullshit. > >> This is certainly not true in terms of the number >> of people affected respectively by his two writings. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Oh dear, looks like SODV etc weren't read by this particular poster. > >> Now, I have asked this before (with no response), but what does MoQ >> teach us? What have we found from a personal point of view that we >> wish to shout from the roof tops? This is where a part of the >> discussion can focuss, for this comes from the esoteric realm of >> meaning. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > I wonder too Mark. How good it is to have such a fine mind to point us poor > MOQ Discuss people THE way. > >> Thanks again, >> Mark > > Ant McWatt comments: > > And same to you. > > Ant > > > > . > > 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
