RE: MD Forked tongue

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 22:45:02 BST

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "RE: MD Where things end."

    Platt,

    I think we disagree less than you suggest, and the "fundamental differences"
    are just linguistic choices, but I give in already.

    The triplet ?
    I would have thought it obvious the third "thing" was the interaction
    between the other two - the main focus for those of us who've left SOM long
    behind :-)

    Pre-intellectual ?
    I understand both the words and the concept I think.
    (Illustrated by the examples you borrow from Pirsig)
    No idea (recollection) what point you were making though.

    Appealing to reason ?
    You're moving the goalposts.
    I never said "without reason".
    I said "without purpose"
    But I wasn't looking for an argumement :-)

    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
    Sent: 29 August 2003 21:35
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: RE: MD Forked tongue

    Ian,

    > You are still describing two different things at each end of an
    > interaction. You still use the word "between". Between "somethings" ?

    Yes, between Dynamic Quality and static quality, a far different
    metaphor from the subject/object metaphor.

    > You are simply using different metaphors to avoid using the words
    > subject and object, but we don't actually have any fundamentally
    > different model here IMHO.

    I'm using a different metaphor, as does Pirsig, to point to a fundamentally
    different model of "reality" -- a hugely different model from the S/O
    model as I'm sure you've noticed.

    > MoQ focusses on the interaction (or the
    > triplet) rather than any distinct subjects or objects, but I don't
    > believe it helps to pretend there's nothing involved in the interaction
    > whatever you call these things - Two to tango you say. Three to tango I
    > could say. (Aphorisms rule by the way.)

    I don't see what this is telling me about your argument. Sorry. What
    third thing?

    > Quote from Lila ?
    > I already said they were "familiar words" - I take it for granted we're
    > all familiar with the texts of ZMM, Lila, SODV and LC. I still don't see
    > what this is telling me about your argument. Sorry.

    You say you don't comprehend the meaning of "pre-intellectual?" How
    about the immediate direct experience of seeing or listening to a work
    of art before you think about it? Or, in the Pirsig example, getting
    your ass off a hot stove?

    > A world of flukes ?
    > I know it's amazing isn't it. Awesome. Difficult to imagine. All of
    > those things, but no reason why it may not be true, and lots of reasons
    > to say it fits the evidence. Try reading "Climbing Mount Improbable".

    What evidence would you cite without my having to read a book? What I
    find most curious is on one hand you appeal to reason, and on the other
    hand you claim that the whole world just happened for no reason at all.
    If you want to talk miracles, Jesus rising from the dead at least had
    witnesses. :-)

    Platt

    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 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 22:47:01 BST