ROGER CANNOT MAKE AMENDS WITH HIS OTHER BROTHER, BUT WISHES HIM WELL IN HIS ENDEAVERS To Bodvar and the rest of the spillover mop-up crew: BO: Re. your message of 3Oct. Do you have the proverb in English about "reading the Bible like the Devil"? You and I are probably looking upon each other as such an activity :-) The part that you use is where Pirsig is doing a comparative studies of his and William James' ideas, and not where the MOQ is on its own home turf. You quote LILA: "Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he (James) described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories'. In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience cannot be called either physical or psychical: it logically precedes this Distinction." ROG: So, I should not quote ZMM. I should also be wary of portions of Lila that aren't on 'home turf'. The other part of Lila I quoted is again ignored. Could you let me know which portion of each book I should use to back up my position? BO: I think I have spotted the source of our differences. All the static levels are "secondary" compared to "pure experience" (Dynamic Value), which means that also Intellect is static and secondary. ROG: Sorry. This is not a difference in our views. The intellect is a conceptual pattern derived from experience as well. I have written this myriads of times. BO: The "pure experience" from where Intellect derives its subjects and objects does not impinge directly upon Intellect, but is filtered through ALL the static levels. ROG: I might word it differently, but essentially agree. BO: That is after all the most basic tenet of the MOQ. Unless that is seen Intellect becomes the freefloating mind of SOM that "creates" reality; completely antroposentric and damaging! Pirsig says that it is Dynamic Quality that creates reality - not Intellect! ROG: Actually, I think it might be higher quality to say that DQ is reality, the intellect just divides and sorts it (based on its social and biological roots) into conceptual patterns. BO: Earlier in another message you said a little triumphantly to me something like this: "So you DO admit that the levels are created..." Roger please, I DID answer that they were created . ROG: Actually I said: " At least you admit that the levels were CREATED...CONCEIVED". I know you answered they were created. I print out every post and try to have it in front of me when responding. My response was oriented toward the others who answered contrary to the MOQ , most of whom have given no references to support their views or any answer to my references other than to label me and Marco and Denis as some Aristotelian category of 'Solipsists' or 'SOMites'. This BTW is a great way to protect static conceptual patterns. If some dynamic new idea threatens your conceptual pattern, label it among already sorted 'bad' patterns and dismiss it . BO: But I forgive you magnanimously. It's beyond human capacity to keep tracks of all what is said or by who in this maze. ROG: Actually, I think I need to magnanimously forgive you for the misquote misquote. I agree that to even try to respond to all these views without hard copies and notes is next to impossible. In all seriousness, I think you and I are going to have to agree to different interpretations. Your summaries of my position show you do not understand it, and your SOLAQI idea has always befuddled me. That is okay. I believe both are very high quality interpretations of experience. The difference is that they are not compatible with each other. A higher quality interpretation could possibly bridge the gap, but I am not convinced you would want to build such a bridge if it threatened SOLAQI. As a final word though, be careful whose position you support in defending SOLAQI. You mention the devil in your intro, so I will reference the same in warning you to be careful who you sleep with. You have jumped to the aid of numerous attacks on the MOQ of late because they appear to validate your idea. You have started dismissing broad selections of Pirsig in defense of the same. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should treat Pirsig's word as gospel, and you have always been upfront that your SOLAQI is not the MOQ and that Pirsig disagrees with it. I guess I am just asking you to be careful at how much of the MOQ you reject to keep your pattern alive. Rog "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" [The Joker] "Laughter is the devil seeing himself in the mirror." [Fintan Dunne, all royalties to be paid in arears] MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
