From: Allen Barrows (allen_barrows@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 02:00:29 BST
Allen, while I agree whole-heartedly with your emphasis on harmony, I get the impression that you are trying to protect me from Bo's "heretical" suggestions.
Hello Mike, I do not emphasise harmony - ZMM and the MOQ do. That is a fact. If it is heretical to tell you that Zen is about harmony, and you are not allowed to say other wise, then i am a big heretic and i make no apologies for it:
Zen is about harmony and you are not allowed to say other wise.
I think you mean to say, 'I agree whole-heartedly with ZMM and Lilas emphasis on harmony.'
Good, so do i. So you and i are actually in agreement Mike about Zen being about harmony and we both do not allow people to say other wise. We are both heretics.
Bo does not have a metaphysical or ontological account of harmony in his own ideas. This is in very stark contrast to ZMM and the MOQ.
Mike - Bo opposes the anti-harmonious nature of SOM as much as any of us, which is one reason for his insistence on what he sees as the only way to prevent SOM from polluting the MOQ.
Allen - Why exactly is SOM anti-harmonious?
Mike - I know ZMM and Lila fairly well, and while I appreciate reference to to them, I think this forum has a higher quality purpose than dogmatic inquiry into these two texts.
Allen - I am not sure, but dogmatic enquiery sounds like cruel kindness which is an oxymoron.
Anyway, Zen is about harmony and the MOQ provides a metaphysical and ontological basis for harmony and all i am saying is that Bo does not have either. In other words, Bo would not know a Zen master if he fell over one, or be able to explain to him or her if he did so why the Cosmos is harmonious in SOL language.
Again, if you or Bo or anyone else can tell me what Bos SOL metaphysical and ontological account of harmony actually is then i am here ready to read it.
Mike - While I don't necessarily agree with the SOL, I appreciate that Bo is attempting to refine the MOQ, not to overhaul it.
Allen - Bo tells us he is the proper author of the MOQ. (MOQ discuss archive) I do not know if that is attempting to refine the MOQ or overhaul the MOQ or what. I simply do not know Mike. I am clue less as to why anyone would want to say such a thing. But one thing i do know is this - Anyone who says 'i am the proper author of the MOQ' and is not Robert Pirsig is not being subtle.
Mike - So there's no need to carry on with this witch-hunting attitude. Such antagonism is _not_ conducive to productive debate.
Allen - If you think i am being antagonistic toward Bos SOL ideas then read the archive. There are pages and pages and pages of the stuff. He has had to leave the forum twice because the antagonism got out of hand.
I guess they must all be wrong, every last one of them a swine to use Bos epithet.
Thank you,
Allen.
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
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 : Thu Jun 16 2005 - 02:04:37 BST