--- skutvik@online.no wrote: > Welcome Clayton, you
wrote:
>
> > Hello. I've only recently begun reading
> these...debates. But it
> > doesn't take much to see the primary motivations
> of a struggle when
> > one views it from the outside
> .....................etc.
>
> Thanks for taking on Squonkstail (maybe a hint to us
> all)
Cheap! ;o) but effective on the weakminded I guess.
but
> please, if my effort is perceived as a "refutation
> of Pirsig" and/or a
> wish to cut him down for my own rise in fame I have
> done something wrong.
There is a metaphysics which runs on the lines ...
"there are no mistakes". On that score ... you or your
subconscious knows perfectly well what you are doing.
> OK, according to the MOQ the "celebrity" factor
> cannot be eradicated,
> social value is the base for intellectual value, but
> the ideal of intellectual
> objectivity isn't nil and void for that reason. It
> is the metaphysical aspect of
> S/O-intellect that invokes the impossible either/or
> demand.
If this means something to someone ... please explain
it to me.
>
> My admiration for Pirsig is limitless and I would
> have liked to start every
> message with a praise, but that would have been
> tiresome and not in his
> style. And his absence from this discussion (well he
> has visited through his
> annotations) is for the reason that that would stop
> it completely.
The reason is because it is yesterdays metaphysics
(Taoism) plus hindsight (science, biology and
darwinism).
> So, I take it
> that it is in Pirsig's spirit to look for weaknesses
> and suggest remedies, and
> the "hole" I found is what the SOL interpretation of
> the intellectual level is
> meant to plug.
It is no "refutation" of the basic
> tenets of the MOQ.
>
> Now, there HAS been many refutations of Pirsig
> throughout this
> group's existence, mostly concerning the very base
> of the MOQ, i.e: that
> Pirsig is wrong about quality-value-morals as the
> "groundstuff" of
> reality, and many "Metaphysics of This and That"
> have been suggested, but
> somehow these assaults have not been seen as very
> offensive, while
You use the term "refutation" in reference to your
refutations and "assaults" when it comes to others
refutations. This is a very defensive stance you have
there.
> my "modification" even though I most vehemently
> defend the basic postulate
> plus the DQ/SQ divide and the static sequence is
> regarded heretical .....?
> Perhaps for my style and persistence, but ..well
> ..this your letter shook me
> considerably. I'll have to think. Thanks all the
> same.
Keep up the excellent argument style. I only wish
Squonk would let on what crux of your differences are.
Better out than in.
respect,
André
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:32 BST