Hi Arlo and all Finally!!......an answer to one of my questions!! and without even one mental health insult!! (extra points) ..... hurrayy!!!!! i sense some moral, social and intellectual improvement here.
[Arlo] Pirsig did not author an 'interpretation of moq'. Eddo: When I read MOQ, I am reading DQ/SQ(4 levels) frame work, I mean an abstract metaphysical frame of reverence as Pirsig draw's it. Arlo: Pirsig's metaphysics are, if anything, his interpretation of *experience*. We are here to discuss Pirsig's ideas, yes. You can disagree, to be sure, and you can suggest a better 'interpretation' of experience than the MOQ. Eddo asks: If a differentiation of the exact written interpretation of Pirsig's experience is suggested and this suggested differentiation fits the contours of the framework. Is this suggested differentiation than considered to be, or not to be, a part of MOQ? Arlo: But as with any intellectual endeavor, you should want to be very clear about what Pirsig (or anyone) has said, so that you can formulate and articulate agreement/disagreement. Eddo asks: Is it only possible to formulate and articulate agreement/disagreement by being very clear about what Pirsig (or anyone) has said? If you are discussing a system isn't it just enough to formulate and articulate agreement/disagreement on logical grounds? Arlo: I throw this example out most times when accusations of 'dogma' start flying (always by those who want to 'interpret' Pirsig to mean something he clearly did not). That is, I disagree (strongly) with Pirsig's stance that the social and intellectual levels are reserved for human activity. I could make a very strong argument that many non-human species evidence social activity, and others evidence rudimentary intellectual activity. Good argument! I am with you on this! Arlo: The thing is, Eddo, this is not "my interpretation of the MOQ". This is me understanding what Pirsig said and taking a point of active disagreement. I have never once been 'shouted down' or attacked by 'the choir' for voicing this disagreement. Eddo says: Well good for you, you probably match the intellectual level of 'the choir' ;-) I am patient in getting my ideas across. I don't run away when the intellectual level drops below zero like others do, I believe there is hope! because i believe the intellectual level is not the problem. I believe the problem lies just in the words we choose to express our intellectual level and ideas. It's like what Pirig said in his video interview on one of antony's dvd's. You can never have to much synonyms about an idea, try to find as much as you can. I believe your'e entiteled to your interpretation of MOQ if the arguments for your claim are sound. but from your last remark i understand that on this forum you are allowed to disagree with Pirsig but you are not allowed to call your disagreement your interpretation of MOQ. Eddo asks: In other words, MOQ = written Pirsig experience = MOQ . Am I right? This makes MOQ more a personal Brand than a philosophical framework. Makes me wonder what Derridah would have to say about this but thats beside the point now. Kind regards, Eddo Rats 2013/9/23 ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > [Eddo asks:] > Are the good guys, on this forum, only discussing pirsig's interpretation > of moq? > > [Arlo] > Pirsig did not author an 'interpretation of moq'. Pirsig's metaphysics > are, if anything, his interpretation of *experience*. We are here to > discuss Pirsig's ideas, yes. You can disagree, to be sure, and you can > suggest a better 'interpretation' of experience than the MOQ. But as with > any intellectual endeavor, you should want to be very clear about what > Pirsig (or anyone) has said, so that you can formulate and articulate > agreement/disagreement. > > I throw this example out most times when accusations of 'dogma' start > flying (always by those who want to 'interpret' Pirsig to mean something he > clearly did not). That is, I disagree (strongly) with Pirsig's stance that > the social and intellectual levels are reserved for human activity. I could > make a very strong argument that many non-human species evidence social > activity, and others evidence rudimentary intellectual activity. The thing > is, Eddo, this is not "my interpretation of the MOQ". This is me > understanding what Pirsig said and taking a point of active disagreement. I > have never once been 'shouted down' or attacked by 'the choir' for voicing > this disagreement. > > > > 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
