Hello everyone On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Dan, inserted below: > > [IG] Your early paragraphs - all opinions about other individuals. I take a > more charitable view. > Dan: So you're a more giving person that I am. I wouldn't argue. Still, that's an opinion too, right? > > > > 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.) > Dan: Why the 'but' then? And not sure what you are OK with, either. About more than objective relations? Did I say that? Think of it this way: In the MOQ Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous. Objective relations are replaced by patterns of quality which emerge from experience. In the MOQ there are no such things as objective relations. > > > > > > > > > > > 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". > Dan: What? Really? Then I take it you haven't been reading any of the discussions between David Harding and me, or between David Morey and me. They are both pretty adamant about people experiencing static quality, which if you look at it logically, breaks down to an independent reality existing apart from the individual, or to a subject experiencing objective reality. In doing so, they are elevating static quality as the central reality in the MOQ. David Harding even admits to doing so. And if you have been reading dmb's posts in the manner you suggest, then we must be reading things differently. I have never in all the years here read him in that way. > > 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. > Dan: What you seem to be saying is that if someone is on a low quality journey we who know better shouldn't criticize them or attempt to point the way to higher quality ideas. By being 'charitable' we basically don't care whether or not these folk gain any knowledge about the MOQ. Is that right? I will for the moment assume there are those here with a greater grasp of the MOQ than others. Perhaps that isn't charitable but life is like that. There are experts in certain fields and then there are laypeople who may possess adequate knowledge and yet they haven't acquired the ability of an expert who has spent tens of thousands of hours honing their skills. Are you saying the experts here should just shut up and take a more fluid integrative approach? Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
