On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Diana McPartlin wrote:
>Can everyone please voice their opinion, and please reply to this post,
>if you just stick it in the midst of another post I might not notice.
>
>You can vote for one of these or suggest your own.
>
It looks like Morality is way out front -- awfully broad, but
intresting. All of the suggestions look good to me! (Including Myths and
symbols in Pirsig's books! Wow!) But I'll make a new one just to have it
on the table. How about: Anthony's Essay. Diana, if you really want to
find out where we all stand on our various interpritations of the MoQ, a
good way to do it would be for us to examine Anthony's essay -- state what
we dissagree w/, make suggestions, find weak points, 'this is too vague,'
'you've got this all wrong,' and so on.
One thing I've had in mind (for example): ANTHONY, where you give
the two models, the MoQ and the SOM, you've got "I percieve, therefor I
am." under the MoQ to contrast w/ Decartes' "I think therefor I am." I
think a 'slogan' that would be much truer to the spirit of the MoQ would
be:
I CARE, therefor I am.
Caring and Qulity are two sides of the same coin. Quality is
what's in the object, and careing is what's in the subject. But as the two
(S and O) are ultimatly collapsed into one, Quality and Care are really
the same thing. Pirsig could have, just the same, called his philosophy
"The Metaphysics of Careing." Interesting, huh? At first it sound too
subjective and too emotivistic, but that's just that S-O reflex comming
into play.
But anyway, thought I'd make the above topic suggestion.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST