Hi John,
Thanks for taking my lunge so well.
You are a good sport.
In a message dated 7/22/01 10:00:43 AM GMT Daylight Time,
beasley@austarnet.com.au writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Beasley review.
Date: 7/22/01 10:00:43 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: beasley@austarnet.com.au (John Beasley)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hullo Squonk,
If, as you assert, ZMM and Lila wrote themselves, then I must assure you
that my essay also wrote itself.
I agree.
I was, (if you will pardon me)? displaying the same facetious tone you apply
to Pirsig in your essay.
(What was that about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?)
If I understand you correctly, (and I find you very difficult to understand
when you write "That is to say, DQ mediated via patterned Pirsig wrote
it."), you appear to be saying that Pirsig somehow channeled these novels
direct from DQ. Is that what you mean?
Pirsig feels everything is value, every last bit of it.
In the developed MOQ, this means Pirsig, 'The man' is a forest of patterns
with evolutionary relationships to each other; and in an overall relationship
to DQ.
Therefore, Pirsig is a bunch of patterns: Patterned Pirsig, or, 'Pirsig the
patterned one' if you prefer? Those patterns which happen to comprise Robert
Pirsig, etc. His patternedness. He of the patterns.
As such, these patterns evolve in a response to DQ.
The patterns mediate DQ; in order to mediate well one has to dissolve into DQ.
(Think of surgeons - novelists - sportspeople - musicians - anyone who
cultivates a, 'Zone' or beginners mind.)
Therefore Pirsig's novels are the static product of a Dynamic relationship.
It begins to look as though this makes Quality (DQ) a noun does it not?
And that was supposed to be the thrust of your recent essay?
If you wrote quality, you would teach quality by example. That is to say, one
possible definition of high quality static patterns is that high quality
static patterns mediate DQ better than lower quality static patterns. This is
recognised in common language to be, 'Talent.'
In comparison, you suggest that my essay is a product of my own invention.
Could you explain how my invention is not derived from DQ? I understand you
to be saying that Pirsig is a saviour and I am a degenerate, using Pirsig's
terms. I am sure it would be of benefit to all if you can now explain how
you are able to discriminate the two, especially as Pirsig himself never
seemed to find a satisfactory way to do this.
I have explained the first bit of this.
All i suggest is that you grossly misrepresent Pirsig and the MOQ.
When i consider you are a prominent member of MOQ.org, then i have to wonder
if i am mistaken in my views?
John B
>>
All the best,
Squonk. :-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:25 BST