Greetings,
Jonathan quoted then commented:
"BO>Using SOM against it is not valid.
I disagree again. Pirsig builds his MoQ using S/O tools because those
are the tools available despite their limitations. This is what makes it
a bootstrapping operation. But is also means that it is perfectly valid
to criticise the MoQ using S/O tools. (I believe that Struan should be
credited with saying the same thing several months ago). However, let's
not get confused between S/O validity and ultimate truth. That's the
lesson of ZAMM."
Yes, that was a cracker!
In one short sentence Bo attempts to eliminate all criticism of the MoQ using the tactic of rogues
over the entirety of recorded history and probably unrecorded history to boot. For Bo it would seem
correct to state from past postings that all that is not MoQ is SOM - a preposterous position but
beside the point here - and now he compounds his error by stating that nothing can be used against
the MoQ except . . . er, the MoQ. Reminds me of Monty Python for some obscure reason:
Brian: 'I'm not the Messiah.'
Crowd Member: 'Only the true Messiah denies his identity.'
Brian: 'Oh all right then, I am the Messiah.'
Crowd: 'He is the messiah, he is the Messiah.'"
This SOM/MoQ dualism is not only simplistic, it is deeply destructive. I hope that most of us can
keep a rather more balanced, less dogmatic view lest we drift off into fairy land. Let us not forget
that this construct of a "SOM" is mainly a literary device and not really to be taken too seriously
as a modern metaphysical position.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST