From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 27 2002 - 00:30:17 BST
Hi David,
Clearly I'm proposing a (partial) change to Pirsig's account - it's a
reform, not a wholesale rejection. It is also clearly something which
accepts the overall framework of the MoQ as presented in Lila. I don't think
I've hidden that fact. Which to my mind means that your are unfairly
characterising my approach when you accuse me of 'distortion' - I'm quite
*obviously* saying that Pirsig is disagreeing with my argument. Aren't I?
Perhaps that would mean that we are no longer discussing the MoQ but a) I
think that would imply an excessively narrow understanding of the MoQ and b)
if that's the truth, isn't that our aim here? In other words, if we end up
agreeing that Pirsig is actually wrong on this (and we may not - even MY
mind isn't wholly made up yet! I could be wrong!), isn't that something
worth knowing? Or would you rather we had a little fundamentalist grouping
that wasn't interested in establishing whether Pirsig's proposals were
actually true or not? I've got a pretty clear idea of what he would say to
that.
I believe that interrogating Pirsig's proposals and establishing their truth
is the point of this forum. You appear to believe that the role of this
forum is simply to further elucidate the insights of the original proposal -
assuming their fundamental truth and not interrogating it.
But our disagreement is plain to see. And those people who are interested
enough to follow the argument have more than enough intelligence and
judgement to make up their own minds. So I'm not going to stop. Feel free to
brand me a heretic and round up a posse to run me out of town... :o)
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:04 GMT