From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 23:05:59 BST
Bo and all:
Bo said:
Your speciality has always been the "cultural approach" to the MOQ
and again, how do you explain away this strong "cultural" indication of
a S/O intellect, and what is your definition if you scoff at the
Manipulation-of-symbols.." definition. It is not enough to say:
"SOLAQI doesn't work". Look to Scott's last inputs, I'm not alone in
seeing this.
dmb says:
Any case of non-SOM intellectual static patterns refutes SOLAQI. Pirsig
names several and that's enough to show that it doesn't work. But mostly I
think its a solution in search of a problem. I mean, I still don't know why
we would need anything more than intellect to understand the MOQ. It may
have some unusual features, but it is still just a philosophy. (Spaeking of
which, If I had to come up with a pithy little definition of intellect I'd
say its "thinking about thinking".)
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 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 23:06:46 BST