Re: MD awareness hierarchy?

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 07:16:13 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD MOQ human development and the levels"

    Dear Squonk,

    Thanks for your relatively 'non ad hominal' reply of 15 Jun 2003
    18:30:23 -0400.
    I'm glad you recognize the right of Bodvar (and by implication: my right) to
    disagree with Pirsig about what is the best way to formulate a MoQ and to
    present his views on this list.
    Just like you I disagree with Bodvar's identification of Subject Object
    Metaphysics or Subject Object Thinking with the 4th level of the MoQ. I
    disagree with Pirsig (and probably with you) on other aspects of the MoQ,
    however.

    I am very sorry that you mix in your contributions to the discussion about
    what is the best way to formulate a MoQ with ideas about who does or does
    not think himself a better interpreter of 'THE MoQ'. According to me there
    is not ONE MoQ that can be better understood or worse, but different
    versions of it. Although trying to understand what Pirsig wrote is a
    legitimate part of what we are doing in this list, in the end contributing
    to the development, the change (to the better), of the dominant version of
    the MoQ AWAY from Pirsig's version is its rationale.

    You react very allergic to people that present their contributions to
    developing the MoQ in a way that seems to suggest that they are somehow
    better than other contributors to the list or even better than Pirsig. You
    are right that the relative quality of the contributor should not be an
    argument in the discussion of the relative quality of contributions.
    Reacting to apparent use of this 'I am better' argument in the way you do
    (attacking the contributor for seeming to use this argument) tends to
    substitute discussion of the 'relative quality of contributors' for that of
    the 'relative quality of contributions', however.

    I therefore strongly advice you to ignore what you experience as 'I am
    better' arguments or better: to interprete that experience as resulting from
    misunderstanding. For if criticized for using such arguments, the critized
    always deny that they meant doing so. Please don't forget that the
    contributors to this list come from all over the world, are of very
    different ages and from very different backgrounds and it is all too easy to
    misunderstand ways of discussion that are normal for some of them for
    pretentiousness.
    I suppose that discussion in the form 'I am better', 'no you are actually
    worse', 'I didn't say that', 'YES, you DID say that', 'no, ...', 'yes, ....'
    etc. is not what you prefer to read on this list either.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    Squonk wrote 15 Jun 2003 18:30:23 -0400:
    Intellect's value is that of distinguishing
    between what is "objective" and what is "subjective" (i.e. reason) therefore
    Q-intellect is SOM and the Quality Idea is a rebel SOM pattern.

    Wim,
    This does not agree with what Mr. Pirsig says.
    That is fine, Skutvik is free to disagree with Mr. Pirsig, but i do happen
    to agree with Mr. Pirsig and therefore i disagree with Skutvik. It's simple.
    Before today, Skutvik has stated clearly that he understands the Metaphysics
    of Quality better than Mr. Pirsig. Again, he is free to value his own ideas,
    but again, i find myself disagreeing with him.
    The MoQ can be viewed as a tension between DQ and SQ. I have not seen
    anything in Skutvik's corpus which indicates that he understands this. This
    being so, Skutvik cannot convey the MoQ effectively to other people.
    In fact, Skutvik does not understand DQ/SQ tension even after having been
    informed of it. I feel this indicates Skutvik's awareness regarding the MoQ.
    squonk.

    This was a reply to what I (Wim) wrote 15 Jun 2003 22:13:10 +0200 as
    introduction to the forwarded post from Bodvar Skutvik:
    Dear all,

    I was very glad that Bodvar Skutvik replied to me off-list in this thread
    AND allowed me to forward it to the list.
    Squonk, if you are tempted to redirect your ad hominem attacks from David B.
    to Bodvar again, please address them to me, because without me Bodvar
    wouldn't have sent this to the list.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 Jun 17 2003 - 07:16:42 BST