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

From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 01:11:38 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "MD Technology"

    [Case]
    And that is just what I thought Pirsig was doing with
    the four levels, mixing up metaphors with a better set
    of logical tinker toys. But the
    prevailing opinion here, at least on the surface,
    seems to be that he
    erected some kind of immutable Great Pyramid to
    channel cosmic powers
    to
    keep razor blades sharp in the King's Chamber.

    Mark:
    You're talking shite now Case.

    Case:
    Quality is the undefined term in MoQ. I have issues of
    emphasis
    with Pirsig's nondefinition but setting those aside
    for the moment, the
    big
    problem is DQ. The conflation of Quality with DQ does
    begin with
    Pirsig. I
    can excuse him because I believe his misuse of the
    term is usually a
    matter
    of rhetorical convenience or perhaps it is because he
    did not
    anticipate
    contemporary advances in math and science that made
    definition of DQ
    possible. In almost every instance were DQ makes
    sense, it sounds to a
    westerner like Chaos. Defined this way DQ fits nicely
    into oriental
    schools
    of thought as well. It is the active aspect, Yang.

    Mark:
    More shite.

    Case:
    Until this matter is resolved I see the MoQ
    stagnating. Having two
    undefined
    terms in a vocabulary of only four words is not
    productive in my view.
    As for the inner and outer issue. I am of course using
    them as code
    words
    for SOM. Although Pirsig shows obvious distain for SOM
    I believe he
    claims
    to have illuminiated not eliminated it. I do think
    there are hard
    distinctions between subject and objects. But I would
    maintain that
    there is
    only one subject in SOM and that would be me. You may
    have your own SOM
    where the subject is you but I think any SOM that
    includes a plural for
    subject is way off base from the get go.

    Mark:
    Shite a go go.

    [Case]
    The equal sign make my shorts creep a bit but: sort
    of, if you mean
    undefined in a chaotic sense.
    Quality, as the central term of the MoQ is undefined.
    It an elephant
    being
    fondled by blind men. It is a dog's Buddah nature. But
    it is the Way,
    harmony, Mark's "sweet spot". It is transcendent. I
    would even go
    further
    and say our inability to apprehend Quality parallels
    our inabilty to
    achieve
    certainty anywhere. It isn't just a philosophical
    matter or a lack of
    capacity on our part. But for now my problem is having
    two terms with
    the
    same non-meaning. In Chaos theory all of the really
    interesting things
    happen on the edges. The sooner we get to the edge in
    these discussions
    the
    better.

    Mark:
    Is that upper or lower case when you log in?

            
            
                    
    ___________________________________________________________
    Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

    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 : Fri Oct 07 2005 - 02:02:02 BST