From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 03:59:46 BST
Squonk,
Here's the situation.
You say: "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ. Subjects and objects are not primary".
I reply that, while I agree that subjects and objects are not primary, I nevertheless think that the way Pirsig deals with subjects and objects is inadequate, for certain reasons.
Your reply to this is "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ". You do not address my reasons.
Now I think it is questionable whether it is correct to say that there are no subjects and objects "in the MOQ". How does one determine what is and is not "in the MOQ"? After all, doesn't Pirsig say that the MOQ includes SOM? Doesn't he specifically say that he will use the words "subjective" and "objective" in a particular way? Doesn't he assign them to a particular place in his system? So saying "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ" is hardly as obviously true as saying "the earth is spherical".
But that is not my gripe, since whether it is true or not is not germane. My gripe It is that I am saying I disagree with Pirsig on how he is using the words "subject" and "object", and give reasons for doing so. Your response is "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ".
For the sake of argument, let's say it is a true statement. But so what? I am saying that I disagree with Pirsig on this point. You do not reply to my reasons for disagreeing, you just reply "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ".
So in your example, if I give a reason for saying that the earth is flat, is your response "The earth is spherical" or do you try to correct my reasoning? I would hope the latter. To just repeat "The earth is spherical" is not a responsive response.
Perhaps "slogan" isn't the right word. What it was was irrelevant in the context. But when it gets repeated, many times, over the objection that it is irrelevant, well, it sounds to me like a slogan, not a thoughtful response.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 2
Squonk,
I state objections to your slogan ("there are no subjects and objects in the MOQ"), you merely repeat your slogan, and add a quote from ZAMM that I agree with, I say why don't you respond to my objections instead of just repeating your slogan, and you just repeat your slogan (and accuse me of not having read ZAMM and Lila). So I say forget it.
squonk: The Earth is spherical is a 'slogan' then is it? If an individual states contra that the Earth is flat, does stating that the Earth is spherical employ a slogan or state a fact?
Therefore one may conclude:
1. I slammed the door in your face, because
2. I was afraid of being shown to be wrong. because
3. I perceived a threat to my social status.
Your logic is breath-taking.
- Scott
squonk: You employ the term 'slogan' in a socially motivated attempt to undermine the intellectual value of an intellectual position. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that you are dominated by social patterns of value.
squonk
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 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 04:06:59 BST