On 2 Feb 2002, at 19:57, Angus Guschwan wrote:
> Bo,
> If you are an example of a follower of Pirsig's MOQ,
> then the MOQ is solipsistic. The only one who
> understands you is yourself, and you seem to take
> pride in that. I've been patient, and Good knows Denis
> has, in trying to understand you. I respect your being
> you, whatever that is. BUT it crosses the line when
> you impugn my scholarship BASED on YOUR views of
> things.
Hi Angus
First sorry for treating your input in an asideish post-post scriptum
fashion and also calling it "lecturing" which had a degrading
connotation in this context, but sometimes I have the feeling that
the ENORMITY of the MoQ gets lost and drop the niceties. As for
solipsism its a big issue and I'll return to that.
Page 136: ... Quality divided into Dynamic and
> static components Page 133: The negative esthetic
> quality of the hot stove in the earlier example was
> now given some added meaning by a static-Dynamic
> division of Quality page 139: Although Dynamic
> Quality, the Quality of freedom creates this world in
> which we live, these patterns of static quality, the
> quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static
> nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other.
You are correct in pointing to these passages in LILA and maybe I
am picking nits, but for instance seeing an ocean as "dynamic"
and the waves as "static" leaves the dynamic part and the original
ocean identical - it really leaves all three identical. Don't you agree?
I just recalled (I tried to find the said message, but..) that you said
that there are three "kinds" of Quality and that struck me as wrong.
> My reputation is important to me, and I don't
> appreciate you attacking it because you can't read a
> book.
As said I did not intend to attack your reputation. Believe me.
> It seems you have a point about how "Dynamic
> Quality" is the cutting edge and therefore in some
> sense "before" static quality and thus maybe there is
> only Dynamic quality. I can "see" that perspective and
> I suppose there is some validity to it. But it does
> not justify you saying I am "wrong" when all I am
> doing is "reporting" what the damn book says. I didn't
> say Quality = DQ + sq, Pirsig did. If you have a
> problem with that, then attack him, not ME. You need
> some clarity of thought and basic manners of respect
> for the scholarship of others.
Obviously, I need both clarity and respect, and you are a example
to follow. Honestly. As for Pirsig I always ask for understanding his
position back then. Not knowing if a living soul would understand
the first thing about his ideas, trying to sound as "scholarly" as
possible and in the process creating a few ambiguities.
Yours truly
Bo
PS I like your many references to books and ideas - f.ex to the
brain layers (limbic etc). My book here is Carl Sagan's "The
Dragons of Eden" and "Bocca's Brain".
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 - 16:01:50 BST