From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 17:51:05 GMT
Ian, Scott, Sam and all MOQers:
dmb had said:
.... Its not about who gets to be a member of
the club, its about taking an honest and responsible approach to the
structure and meaning of the ideas that make up the MOQ. If it has all the
precision and power of a motorcycle, then it also has a certain integrity
and it can only take so much banging and tinkering before the thing breaks
down. While there is a wide range of accessories we could add or
improvements we can make, there is an infinately wider range of things we
can do to ruin it. ....
Sam Norton replied:
The impression you give is that a) it's inconceivable that Pirsig might be
wrong on something, and b) it's inconceivable that DMB might be wrong on
something. The MoQ is your God and RMP is your prophet. Ironically enough, I
think there is little that RMP would disavow more strongly than that.
Consider annotation 151 in Lila's Child "The answer is that Pirsig doesn't
like being unnecessarily arbitrary. If someone likes five levels, he can
have them. It's still the MOQ, even though he personally prefers four
levels." If RMP can be relaxed about amendments to the MOQ - and say 'it's
still the MoQ' - why are you so uptight about it?
dmb says:
Your "impression" defies my explicit assertions. Its not about conformity or
submission at all. Its about honesty and decency. As I already said, "there
is a wide range of accessories we can add and improvements we can make".
Your response strikes me as a rather willful distortion, a lie. What's
bizzare is that you think no one will notice the conspicous gulf between my
actual words and your "impression" of them. And to be more specific,
Wilber's picture is one of those additions everyone has already seen me
import here and his has far more levels than Pirsig's MOQ. This is not a
problem at all and still fits quite nicely. I mean, I've already
demonstrated my agreement with annotation 151, even though I was unaware of
it. I've brought all kinds of things to the table and enjoy it when other do
as well. But trying to re-insert what Pirsig has explicitly rejected is just
plain wrong, and I don't just mean incorrect. That's the kind of thing that
shows a disrespect for or incomprehension of the integrity of the ideas.
Ian said to dmb:
Apart perhaps from the word "mysticism" I'd like to think I'm with you on
the whole of this post. (For mysticism I see experience-based common-sense.
You yourself say, based in experience.)
dmb says:
I would say that mystical experience and common-sense experience are most
definately two different things. I would also say that philosophical
mysticism to so central and so essential to the MOQ that it fails to be the
MOQ without it. (This is why theism just won't work and why Pirsig rejects
it.)
Ian asked:
Which particular strand of this mixed-up thread was it that stung you?
dmb says:
Its not really about any particular thread. Its much older and wider than
that, but it was your advice that we "rise above traditional views". I
thought to myself, "yea, that's exactly the problem". The conservatives and
the theists seem to cling to their traditional views with iron-jawed
determination. There is a thick-headed attitude that seems quite impervious
to facts or logic. Like most normal people with a decent respect for
intellectual values, I find this kind sort of thing quite frustrating. Lots
of people have complained about this very same thing. It usually draws the
kind of response Sam provided; a distortion, an insult and an evasion of the
actual issues. It breaks my heart.
Weep. Sob. Sigh.
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sun Nov 21 2004 - 19:56:58 GMT