Hi Dan, inserted below: On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello everyone [IG] Your early paragraphs - all opinions about other individuals. I take a more charitable view. > I do not feel we are not beholden to SOMist language any more than we are > to seeing the world as composed of only subjects and objects. Rationality > and logic do not depend on subjects and objects. The MOQ makes use of > patterns of quality to interpret the world, expand rationality, and improve > logic. > [IG] OK, but you are now expanding the definition of logic as well as the definition of rationality - a logic that is about more than objective relations. (I'm more than OK with that.) > > > > > > I'm OK with that, because I don't feel bound with intellect or philosophy > > being constrained by that kind of logic. Pirsig used a greater aesthetic > in > > his rhetorical communications - and we find quality in him for that very > > reason. > > > > **** > > My axioms were so clean-hewn, > > The joins of ‘thus’ and ‘therefore’ neat > > But, I admit > > Life would not fit > > Between straight lines > > And all the cornflowers said was ‘blue,’ > > All summer long, so blue. > > So when the sea came in and with one wave > > Threatened to wash my edifice away - > > I let it. > > > > Marianne Jones > > **** > > Let it go. > > Let the SOMist debate go. > > > > Dan: > Exactly. Yet at the same time, there are those here who insist we as > individual subjects experience a world made up of objects. Even though > Robert Pirsig is quite clear in saying the MOQ opposes any such > notion--that the central reality of the MOQ isn't a subject or an > object--these folk continue arguing in favor of subjects experiencing > objective reality. > > Bodvar spent countless years harping on this idea. Yet it was clear he had > to dismiss most everything about the MOQ to reach such a conclusion. Now, > we have David Harding, David Morey, Marsha, and others all continuing along > this very same route. No matter who tries to dissuade them, even Robert > Pirsig, they keep on clinging to what they know in favor of letting go and > taking a chance on seeing what the MOQ is saying. > [IG] Wow, about Bo, I might agree (I spent a lot of time discussing with Bo the "patient / disease" error, as dmb would call it). About others I just don't see anyone (other than dmb ironically ;-) "arguing in favor of subjects experiencing objective reality". I honestly still believe the whole long-running argument is simply a SOMist language communication problem - that we ALL share since Aristotle - particularly if we take the "critical" stance with those we are arguing "against". Being more charitable I take a more "fluid integrative" view of those I am debating "with". Critique against - is inherently SOMist. Me vs other. Ian 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
