Hi Denis (Marco?)
Sorry that I cause you such vexation, it's not on purpose. It seems
like it's only you and Marco & myself who can stand the
metaphysical "high country" ...like it even. The Sherpas of this site!
But I feel we are near the summit and the very source of our
disagreement so hang on for a moment.
You said:
> tone of this post might be abrupt, but I'm getting tired of having to
> guess what you mean since you never try to make any reasoned argument.
> EXPLAIN YOURSELF !
> 1. Why isn't the MOQ an intellectual pattern ?
It depends on how we define the intellectual level, but in my opinion
it creates the logic impasse of it being a pattern of a lesser part of
itself. You have countered this before, but like the agreement I
reached with Marco it may be reconciled by seeing the Quality
idea as a high intellectual pattern, still living with its parent, but a
rebel that eventually will leave home.
> 2. How does SOLAQI miraculously avoid the fact that you're *talking*
> about Quality?
In the "good-night" note to Rob you said it's all play with words,
head-games ...etc, and if Pirsig saw the MoQ that way why did he
invest so much in it ... if it wasn't for exacly the purpose to escape
that trap? It's not the SOLAQI, but the MoQ that avoids the
language dead end. I'll try to show how.
No sarcasm, but do you mean that EVERYTHING is language, or
do you mean words about an underlying reality, and that Pirsig
says that this underlying reality is Quality? If that is so it's not
different from what all Western traditional philosophy have spun so
much yarn on ... epitomized by Kant's subjective (Ding für Uns)
about an unbeknown (Ding an Sich) reality.
Still serious: If, on the other hand, you mean that EVERYTHING is
language .- which is inevitable - you are in the same position as P
of ZAMM who found that Quality (Value, Morals) is everything. A
"Metaphysics of Language" (MoL) could be made: Inorganic
language - Bio language ..etc. The point is that in such a MoL the
divide can't be between objective language/subjective Language -
which would be another SOM - it has to be between Dynamic and
Static language. EXACTLY AS IN THE MOQ WHERE NOTHING
CAN BE BEYOND VALUE - NOT EVEN LANGUAGE.
You will remember that there has been suggestions for other
Dynamic/Static candidates. "Meaning", is the one I remember, but
"language" is good ....as a matter of fact it's easier to prove that
everything is language than that everything is value, but as said: It's
the leaving the subject/object fixation which is the great
achievement ....and QUALITY is the BEST!!
> 3. What's that difference you're talking about just
> above ?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
> I'm crying out for some fully fleshed-out ANSWERS, and not just
> cryptic statements about how SOLAQI "avoids" all pit-traps. Do not
> TELL us. SHOW us !
> I know this post verges on the side of verbal aggression, Bo, but I
> feel like I have exhausted by bag of tricks to make you ANSWER me. Get
> out with it !
OK, I understand your frustration, but bear with me and give the
above (#2) some consideration. You write such weighty messages
and must spend a lot of time thinking things over, I don't for a
moment believe you would do so if you regard it all hot air.
With friendly greetings.
Bo
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 - 16:01:41 BST