Thanks for that Mark.
I knew you could do better.
Best wishes,
Ant
----------------------------------------
Mark Smit stated May 5th 2012:
Hi Ant,
Perhaps I am not as clear as I could be, so I have added some comments
below. Please do not take them personally.
On 5/5/12, 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!
Mark:
To point I was trying to make, is that bridges are necessary from a
variety disciplines in order to allow others to understand MoQ. I
find an analytical approach to be one of those. I see no reason to
have a problem with what Tuukka is trying to do. You have to admit
that the whole idea of leaving Quality undefined is highly religious
in its instructions. There is no wonder that Pirsig claims to be
"anti-theist" since his explanations smack of theism. I am not saying
that he is, but a little more is required to show that. Before we can
criticize what Tuukka is doing, we should at least give him a chance
and see what he comes up with. I am not quite sure what problem
people have with what he is doing. He is abiding by the tenants of
MoQ. Maybe I am wrong there, but how do you explain Quality?
>
>> 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!
Hmmm... what is a metaphysics to you? Is it more than a presentation
of reality?
>
>> 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.
Well, Ant, that is your opinion. I imagine you are speaking for
yourself. Are you a proponent of "The Selfish Gene" as the best
explanation? Do you feel the most accurate manner in which to
describe human behavior is as selfishness? There are much better
explanations than that, which fit quite well with MoQ, and the sense
of personal Arete. Do you know what it is like to be selfless? Until
you do, stop projecting an "evil" world.
>
>> 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...
I am not sure if you are in a bad mood, had too much to drink or if
you are having love life problems, but your tone is certainly one of
suffering. I guess you figure that if you put someone else down, then
you look better. Is that it?
>
>> 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).
Well, Ant, you have yet to tell me what is "New". I already debunked
your idea that Value before SO is new (review my posts). Perhaps you
have something else in mind. What is New? What may be new to you
does not make it new.
>
>
>> 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...
OK, its like turning out of a skid. You ever try that on your
motorcycle? If you keep using the same rhetoric over and over, you
will never pull out of that skid but end up going in circles.
>
>> 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.
Gee, I am glad you have fallen prey to the Global Warming nonsense.
It at least tells me something about your scientific understanding.
Seems to be an English problem. 1000 feet won't help you. I am sure
you have calculated the sea level if Antarctica melts. If you
haven't, then perhaps you should do the math before you start
mentioning numbers. Still, I like your ounce of prevention there.
Most people in New Orleans want to move right back to where the sea
destroyed them last time. What is the definition of insanity again?
>
>> 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?
I guess it depend on what you mean by heaven. I believe we live in
that right now. Maybe you treat now like some kind of "Bother".
Death is the beginning of the cycle. Perhaps you are not up on your
Buddhism, despite writing about Pirsig. You sound like some Christian
fanatic waiting for his 16 virgins.
>
>> 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.
Yeah, it's all those stupid leaders and followers, if you ask me.
>
>
>> and the experiential mind.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I'm lost here. What mind isn't experiential? George Bush juniors mind?
> Humo(u)r me.
Sure, I'll humor you. The intellectual mind is scaffolding we build
by putting pieces together. It claims to depict what is, but what it
really is, is something we create from the experiential mind. This
comes from DQ (in case you had forgotten already). In the West (you
included) there is an adoration of the intellect as if it is more real
than what creates it. This is why MoQ needs to rectify this balance.
Perhaps you have another idea for MoQ. If so, I would like to hear
it...
Are you another one of those American bashers? I met a lot of them
while doing my Ph.D. at Imperial College.
>
>> 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.
Ha, ha. Again your adoration of the intellect. Somebody without it
is somehow less grand than you. You must be a laugh at a dinner
party. Perhaps you have not read what John wrote about the difference
between the intellect and rationality. Perhaps you did but did not
understand it. Or perhaps it did not fit in with your vision of the
world.
>
>>
>> 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.
Yes, I suppose it would to you. What you create out of what you read
is up to you. If you want to create bullshit out of it, your choice.
You bring words to life by reading them, they are just jottings on a
page.
>
>> 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.
Well then, Ant, tell me what the problem with Plato was. His "Good"
is the same thing as Pirsig's Quality. Hopefully I will get at least
an intelligent response for this one, and not just some idiotic
quotes. It would make a good debate, once you get over insulting me.
>
>
>> 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?
Depends if they are gay or not.
>
>> (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.
Like I said, you bring words to life by reading them. If you create
bullshit, it is your doing.
>
>> 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.
How do you know that you cannot conceptualize it? What exactly does
conceptualization mean to you. You THINK it swings, what is not
conceptual about that? You sound confused to me, but I guess that is
your form of crystal clarity. If you did not THINK is swings would
that be preconceptual, or is conceptual something beyond thinking?
Let me know when you have the difference figured out for real.
>
>> 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.
You yourself just called them "cool riffs", sounds pretty social to
me. What were they before they were cool riffs? Your pre-conceptual
is nothing but conceptual as far as I can tell. Do you know what you
are talking about here? Pal, try to get it together here. You are not
making any sense. Do you have any idea what the Social Level is?
Perhaps it is a party to you, but there is more to it than that. Give
it a think.
>
>> 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.
No, you do not follow me at all (sigh!). The subjective becomes the
objective. When we speak of the "subjective" it is objective. If we
do not recognize it at all, it remains subjective. The seconds of
your life are wasted thinking that the objective is all there is. You
are missing most of life, my man. If you don’t think riffs are cool,
then I suppose they are nothing to you. Your thinking gets in the
way, buddy.
>
>> 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?)
Well, at least we have something in common here. I liked the Dadaist
movement. Here in California we have something called the Burning Man
Festival, perhaps you have heard of it. It's worth a trip out. So, a
urinal is a joke? What are you looking for, some complex pointillism?
Perhaps you are not that familiar with the Art world, but it has as
much to say as any philosophy seminar. Having said that, I do not
know who Emin or Hirst are. Must have missed that one…
>
>> 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.
I am not sure what you are saying with this "bullshit" phrase. Does
this mean that what you interpret from my words is crap? I certainly
do not feel uncomfortable with what you say, what you interpret is up
to you. If you explain why it seems like crap, at least then we could
have a discussion. But, something tells me that this is not your
intent. No worries.
>
>> 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.
Got any friends?
>
>> 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.
Gee, you don't cut any slack at all do you. What I meant is the "body
of the explanation". But again I am sure that is bullshit to you as
well. Sorry, can't help you there.
>
>> 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.
How many copies did ZAMM sell? How many copies did Lila sell? I am
talking about numbers.
>
>> 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.
Well, that was not my intention. But it looks like the way you are
doing things has not got us anywhere, has it? I mean after all those
years you devoted to your Ph.D. what has it got you? Are there any
books coming out from your side? It would be a shame to waste a good
education.
>
>> Thanks again,
>> Mark
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> And same to you.
>
> Ant
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
