John to Andre: Your words are absolutely clear, Andre. I can see right through them. To the exact wording that Pirsig used and while I have to give you an "A" for scholarly accuracy, If that's all there is to your MOQ then I’m afraid you’ve missed the whole point.
Andre: You’re right John and I apologize for not recognizing your profound intellect and ¨deep value” understanding of Pirsig’s MOQ. John: All can be seen in a religious context, if you think of religion as it truly is - the sharing of deep value. Andre: Yes John…you’ve opened my mind (or is it heart?)… sharing of ¨deep value”. Gosh, I wished I’d have come up with that one. It is sooooo profound. So that is REALLY what Pirsig means by the social level. Wow! I mean, I’ve heard of low value and high value but DEEP value. This really adds to my understanding of the MOQ. Thank you John, thank you. John: You can narrow it down to human society, and it still has wide scope - football, economics, academic associations, rotary club minutes, etc, etc. What would you call a single term that encompassed all that territory, if not of wide scope? Andre: Yes John…wide scope. Instead of merely suggesting ¨social level” Pirsig should have said religious level as this would have included everything. But YOU thought of it John. Fantastic! Your genius has hit on something profound and put Pirsig to shame! John: You've made your point perfectly and I smell your pain. You think the MOQ experience can be confined to words and exact definitions. You are sadly lost, my friend. And I doubt I can help you. I know the way out of the dark wood you're in, but you don't like or trust me. There's not much I can say. Andre: Again profound John. Now you think you can master the art of mind reading as well. I have one word for that: brilliant. Andre previously: > A good definition does not narrow the context?it broadens it John. John: You've crossed the line to the irrational now. I got nothing to say to de-constructive nihilists. Andre: ¨Good is a noun. That was it. That was what Phaedrus had been looking for. That was the homer, over the fence, that ended the ball game… if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it” . ( The Dakota Indian considers goodness to be a noun rather than an adjective) (LILA p 418). John in response to Andre’s just capture the MOQ [ and all is said]: And here we are, less than 50 years latter, Andre-Buchanan can utter the same idea, dressed in an "MOQ" blanket, and nobody on this forum but I can see the great error, the huge mistake that is. Andre: John, you are proving your brilliance once again. Do you feel lonely John? I mean, you’re intellectual circumference has not been equalled on this site and, as you mentioned earlier the people you talk with do not comprehend what you say when talking MOQ so you talk SOM. It must be lonely at the top John…come on…show some human frailty. John: A statement that violates the very heart and spirit of the MoQ, That any sort of static pattern holds the keys on "all there is to say”. Andre: You are assuming that the word ¨capture” denotes ¨all there is to say”. Actually there is very little to say John but you know that already. John: "In the area of Religion, the rational relationship of Quality to the Godhead needs to be more thoroughly established, and this I hope to do much later on.” Andre: I can’t wait John. Am so looking forward to your brilliant insights. Can’t you give us a preview? John: And I'm sorry to embarrass you so. Its bound to happen when we all get thrown together in one group, the idiots and smart-asses in one place. I can't help it that I uncover your shame. It's just my nature to be honest. Andre: And honesty is a virtue John…and you display it over and over. You are the smart ass and I am the idiot. You are soooo profound. I love you John. 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
