From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 10:01:09 GMT
Wim, Bo, Mark
Wim said:
> Your answer is clear. My answer is different: Pirsig's MoQ and
Bodvar's MoQ
> are both (recognizable as) variations of 'THE MoQ', which is a pattern
> (which is in the process of migrating towards DQ) and not a rigid set
of
> ideas determining who 'belongs' and who doesn't.
Bo said:
Thanks for your good words. I interpret it that you don't see any BoMOQ.
Paul:
I interpret Wim to be saying that there is a "BoMOQ," but that there is
a "Pirsig MOQ" as well. In other words, Pirsig has no claim to have
written "the MOQ," right Wim? I personally find this a little dismissive
of the author and I think Pirsig would distinguish between "the MOQ" and
other interpretations. In a letter to Doug Renselle, he wrote:
"The content of the first page of chapter 12 of Lila is really the
essence of the MOQ and if someone wants to change this to something else
he should certainly be allowed to do so. I think that to prevent
confusion, however, it would be better if he called the results of his
work by some distinguishing name. Otherwise he would be leaving the
impression that I and others had approved of this change and had adopted
it when, in fact, some of us might never have heard of it."
As Pirsig wrote nothing about a "budding fifth level" which would
fundamentally alter the framework laid out in chapter 12, I think Mark
is correct to suggest that Bo's interpretation be distinguished from the
MOQ presented in Lila.
Bo said:
I have suggested a different definition of the intellectual level that's
all, one that fits better what Pirsig actually have written about it in
ZMM and LILA ...than his later definitions, but for some reason Mark
has made this into some offense.
Paul:
What I find objectionable is not that you have interpreted Pirsig the
way you have but when you say that your understanding of intellect "fits
better what Pirsig actually has written about it in ZMM and LILA." If
you had said something like "my understanding of intellect fits better
with historical evidence/my experience/other theories" then I think it
would be less likely to annoy Mark and myself.
Once you start rejecting the definition/boundaries of an entire level
you inevitably have to redefine other levels/create new ones and so you
cannot say that what you have constructed fits better with the rest of
the author's ideas, and in the case of Robert Pirsig, he has repeatedly
stated that he can see nothing in what he has written that would lead to
the conclusions you have arrived at. If you choose to dismiss various
parts of Pirsig's writing, why appeal to other parts of his writing to
support your case?
Paul
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 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 10:01:33 GMT