Re: MD Dealing with S/O

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 19:21:25 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD A metaphysics"

    Hi Scott
    Perhaps you can take possession of DQ
    or rather its so close to you, you could not be
    human without it. SQ too of course.

    regards
    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 10:50 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O

    > Paul, Scott,
    >
    > A quick quip--
    >
    > Paul said:
    > In a nutshell, it seems to me that trying to bring Coleridge/Barfield and
    Pirsig together doesn't work and doesn't help in understanding the
    vocabulary of either.
    >
    > Scott said:
    > I think I agree.
    >
    > Matt:
    > Ah, poo poo on you both! I say, bring together whoever you like and see
    if anything interesting pops out. And, I would say at least on the surface,
    something interesting can be pulled out of Pirsig-Coleridge or
    Pirsig-Barfield colligations. Scott's been pulling around Barfield long
    enough for me to think so.
    >
    > Scott said:
    > But worse than this is that there is no creativity allowed for me (or for
    Shakespeare, for that matter), since all creativity, that is, the production
    of new static patterns of value, is assigned to DQ. Thus, the MOQ seems to
    be on a par with Calvinist predestination.
    >
    > Matt:
    > You see, I think this is wonderful. Judging that, because this is
    reasoning as to why Scott likes Barfield better than Pirsig, this came from
    Scott's comparison of Barfield and Pirsig, I think this is ripe fruit.
    Because I too would criticize the MoQ in the same fashion because I too
    think it runs the risk of predestination if we read Pirsig as a Hegelian
    (and granted I am very familiar with the passage where Pirsig disavows
    himself from the Hegelian Absolute Spirit; the issue isn't what Pirsig
    thinks he's doing, but what he actually ends up doing). Scott came to this
    from a different place, but I think it fruitful nevertheless. Its why I
    read "DQ" as a post hoc compliment as undefinable as "truth" and "good" and
    "beauty".
    >
    > Matt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 19:20:52 BST