Ian Glendinning stated May 6th:
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.
Ant McWatt comments:
Ian,
While I agree with your sentiment here, I guess what I was essentially trying
to convey in my last (rather bad tempered) post to Mark is William James'
concern about being as clear as possible with one's rhetoric. I'm sure Mark
has a genuine interest in the MOQ but his "Moving On" post was just too verbose
and loose for my liking.
Best wishes,
Ant
==============================================
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
