John said to Dan:
...I'm well acquainted with Pirsig's works and have been active in discussing
them for a long time. I realize I differ in my opinions than some on this list
and I realize that's a painful thing to some people, but I'm of the opinion
that I'm here to do more than merely learn Pirsig's MoQ. (which I learned when
I read it, btw) ..I'm here to fill it out and develop it further.
Dan replied:
...I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here other than your contention
that SOM is incharge of the social level, which in turn is composed of
individuals. In order to counter that argument it seemed necessary to go back
to the beginning. It is great that you have nothing left to learn. ... when I
see someone going off on a wrong tangent, I do my best to guide them in the
right direction. ...The first clue that you might be wrong is Ham's
proclamation that you've hit pay dirt. ..The second clue is David Buchanan and
his attempts at setting right your misconceptions. ..I don't mean to be
critical, but from what I've seen and despite your protestations, you do not
understand the MOQ.
John replied:
Well, you might be right. But it seems to me that if you are it's a terrible
condemnation. Not of me, but of the MOQ. If something is so mysterious, so
impenetrable that a smart guy can spend over 25 years enthusiastically studying
and adopting it as a basis for his life - and still not understand it, then
that's a very confusing and confused metaphysical system. But I find Pirsig to
be very clear and understandable and I don't have any trouble understanding
him. ...Even tho I am confident of my grasp of the MOQ, I'm always glad to
hone and refine. But even apart from the MOQ, I know what a social pattern is.
dmb says:
If a smart guy like you doesn't understand it, then the MOQ is impenetrable and
confused? I think that attitude is pretty outrageous. It's also odd that you
confidently declare your grasp of the MOQ rather than address the specific
corrections and criticisms I've leveled against your claims. Don't you have any
response to the article on subject-object dualism or the Pirsig quotes about
what drives the social level? I don't see anything to support your claims but
there are plenty of unaddressed refutations of them.
As I understand it, you're still making the claim that the giant operates
according SOM and your question is weather or not this is necessary or
inevitable. But Dan and I have repeatedly tried to explain that the giant does
not operate according to SOM - and I showed you what Pirsig says about fame and
fortune being the twin engines of the social level. You're simply ignoring lots
of really helpful help from helpers. It's frustrating. It's not honest. You
can't have a real discussion about anything if you act like that. C'mon, John.
Listen to yourself. It's outrageous.
"..I'm well acquainted with Pirsig's works ...I'm here to do more than merely
learn Pirsig's MoQ. (which I learned when I read it, btw) ..I'm here to fill
it out and develop it further. ...I find Pirsig to be very clear and
understandable and I don't have any trouble understanding him. ...I am
confident of my grasp of the MOQ, ...I know what a social pattern is."
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
