Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: MarshaV (marshalz@charter.net)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 10:32:35 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    Dear Ant,

    I totally agree with you about the posts of David Buchanan, Paul Turner,
    and you (There are others too). I depend on these posts to bring some MOQ
    perspective to the mish-mosh of detractors who have their own agenda. I
    also agree that the MOQ is a bridge, an important bridge, between mysticism
    and metaphysics, the East and the West. For an open Western mind, it
    brings together the best of both worlds. I find the attempts to ossify the
    MOQ's freedom ridiculus.

    Marsha

    At 12:58 AM 9/20/2005 +0000, you wrote:
    >Bo Skutvik stated September 15th 2005:
    >
    >In "Lila's Child" Pirsig returns to the ZMM analogue of
    >Gravity being created by Newton. This is true as it is that the
    >MOQ is created by Pirsig, but while it in ZMM meant from
    >Newton's MIND, in LILA it means from the uppermost static
    >level that Pirsig is made up of. If this isn't heeded and the
    >intellectual level continues as mind, SOM has returned creating a
    >mess. For instance that all levels really are "intellectual", and
    >Paul is only too willing to back all this, and people too easily
    >swayed by his rhetorical skill. He managed to lead DMB astray
    >and this once splendid thinker has now retired into mysticism.
    >Remember Pirsig's in LILA that the stiffest resistance to
    >metaphysics is by the mystics...
    >
    >Ant McWatt comments:
    >
    >I’ve never seen Pirsig’s comments in “Lila’s Child” as any more than a
    >further explanation of some of the ideas put forward in LILA and in fact
    >these comments corrected some of the more misleading ideas that people
    >were propounding (on this Board) around 2000. One of these ideas was SOL
    >which I've still never seen explained clearly.
    >
    >Moreover, I think that the MOQ (the philosophical “contradiction in terms”
    >- Pirsig's words) is a bridge between mysticism and metaphysics. If there
    >is a distinction to be made, I think the MOQ just doesn’t take either
    >tradition too seriously (or, at least, as seriously as many of the
    >respective proponents of these traditions). Hence the emphasis in the MOQ
    >on (genuine) pragmatism i.e. are these ideas/understandings a helpful way
    >of looking at reality? If yes, let’s use them, if not then let’s
    >not. And as far as David Buchanan and Paul Turner’s posts are concerned
    >(at least in clarifying the MOQ) they have been AND THEY REMAIN some of
    >the better posts on this Discussion Board.
    >
    >Anyway, that's my two cents,
    >
    >Best wishes,
    >
    >Anthony.
    >
    >
    >"Turn on (to Dynamic Quality), Tune in (to the MOQ), drop out (of SOM)."
    >
    >(with apologies to Dr Leary)
    >
    >_________________________________________________________________
    >FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ­ get it now!
    >http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
    >
    >
    >
    >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

    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 : Tue Sep 20 2005 - 10:36:10 BST