From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 07:41:20 BST
Hi Mark,
You lost me a bit on the Jane Ayer and Mr. Rochester affair. But I don't
agree
that a primary Pirsig is largely obscured by secondary interpretations.
Because, after Pirsig, we are ALL doing secondary interpretations. Some of
these secondary interpretations may obscure the primary Pirsig and some may
add
to the primary Pirsig. And some may shed new light on the primary Pirsig.
Mark: I apologise for losing you with my analogy. Maybe i should forget using
analogies altogether, or use better ones?
The primary Pirsig is understood and agreed upon by many individuals. It is a
shame very few of these individuals contribute to the forum, but this may be
due to the poor secondary interpretations - they are a put off. I know i am
sick to death of them already.
Andy:
You said: "The MoQ position, 'as is' does have a formal structure. At least,
this seems clear to me."
Andy: It has a formal structure that is open to some criticisms. The
debates
we often find here are on this formal structure and the strengths and
weaknesses
of it.
You also said: "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."
Andy: I do not intend any disrespect, but your assertion that the MOQ
position
is one of SQ-SQ harmony and DQ-SQ tension is not only vague, but also
confusing.
It says nothing about the levels that Pirsig also delineates and specifically
does not help us distinguish the intellectual and social levels which has
been
the focus of much debate. Now I don't know anything about the matter of
record,
but it certainly appears you have very strong opinions about "the proper MOQ"
and BO misrepresents whatever this may be. It is my opinion that the proper
MOQ
does not exist and this is something both Bo and you moght disagree with me
on.
Cheers,
Andy
Mark: In this post you say: 'It (the MoQ) has a formal structure that is open
to some criticisms. The debates we often find here are on this formal
structure and the strengths and weaknesses of it.' Now i do not intend any
disrespect, but this statement flatly contradicts your later statement: 'It is my
opinion that the proper MOQ does not exist...' How the hell something that does not
exist can have a formal structure is something i find exhilarating in its
absurdity.
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 - 07:42:28 BST