From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 02:43:45 BST
Hi Mark,
You said: "While you [David M] and i agree with the MoQ, there are many who
do
not. I should urge those who do not agree with the MoQ to first state the MoQ
position as it is before introducing their own terminology and/or challenging
arguments. I feel this is a matter of intellectual integrity - anything else
is
unacceptable.
Andy: I agree with the MOQ [in a sense]. There are many illuminating
insights
in Pirsig's philosophy. However, I really don't know how to state the MOQ
position as it is. My take is that the MOQ is evolving. I have yet to come
up
with it's position as is. This seems to be one of the purposes of this
discussion here. So, I am unsure what it is you are exactly asking for.
My geuss is you would wish we would state what Pirsig said using his
terminology
and then build from there--noting the differences between our terminology and
his. This seems to be something repeated by others here also. I think for
the
ones who have been around awhile, it is usually pretty easy to tell the
difference. I don't think Bo should have to make this distinction every time
he
uses the term Q-intellect. It would be very repititious and boring if he
did.
To be hung up on such distinctions gets in the way of progressive
discussions.
If you could state the position of the MOQ as it is, then we might have
something to start from. However, be warned, there is bound to be some
discussion on whether or not this really is the position as it is. We all
seem
to be circling around this position without ever really nailing it's precise
coordinates down.
Regards,
Andy
Hello Andy,
The MoQ position, 'as is' does have a formal structure. At least, this seems
clear to me.
The position is one of SQ-SQ harmony, and DQ-SQ tension.
Bo's terminology does not, and should not have to be reiterated every time he
discusses his ideas - i certainly agree with you there. However, it is a
matter of record that Bo feels his view to be, 'the proper MoQ,' and this IS
confusing for those new to the forum.
I feel this is a little like me insisting Jane Ayer did not marry Mr.
Rochester, and my novel must be socially approved to be the correct literary version
of Jane Ayer. All i am saying is that the primary Jane Ayer should be, and can
be delineated before secondary interpretations are applied. That a primary
Pirsig can be, and is indeed delineated, is largely obscured by secondary
interpretations, in my view.
Mark
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 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 02:45:35 BST