From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 14:23:38 BST
Hi Mark,
You said: " 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."
Andy: You see a cotradiction because you hold "proper" and "formal" to mean the
same thing. In fact, they are different words with different meanings. When I
hear someone talk about "the proper MOQ", I assume they mean a fixed entity
representing the True MoQ. This is what I think does not exist.
I hope this clarification helps,
Andy
> 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 - 14:25:09 BST